WG17 2017 BD - 1

TBM Excavation of Long and Deep Tunnels
Under Difficult Rock Conditions
ITA Working Group n°17

Long Tunnels at Great Depth
N° ISBN: 978-2-9701122-2-8 ITA REPORT n°19 / MAY 2017
21619-AITES-REPORT-xx-WG17.indd 1 08/06/17 12:38

ITA Report n°19 - TBM Excavation of Long and Deep Tunnels Under Difficult Rock Conditions
- N°ISBN: 978-2-9701122-2-8 / MAY 2017
Layout : Longrine – Avignon – France – www.longrine.fr
The International Tunnelling and Underground Space Association/Association Internationale des Tunnels et de l’Espace Souterrain (ITA/AITES) publishes this report to, in accordance with its
statutes, facilitate the exchange of information, in order: to encourage planning of the subsurface for the benefit of the public, environment and sustainable development to promote advances
in planning, design, construction, maintenance and safety of tunnels and underground space, by bringing together information thereon and by studying questions related thereto. This report
has been prepared by professionals with expertise within the actual subjects. The opinions and statements are based on sources believed to be reliable and in good faith. However, ITA/AITES
accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever with regard to the material published in this report. This material is: information of a general nature only which is not intended to address the specific
circumstances of any particular individual or entity; not necessarily comprehensive, complete, accurate or up to date; This material is not professional or legal advice (if you need specific advice,
you should always consult a suitably qualified professional).

TBM Excavation of Long and Deep Tunnels
Under Difficult Rock Conditions
ITA Working Group n°17

Long Tunnels at Great Depth

>> Summary
1. introduction.......................................................................................................................................6
2. DEFINITION OF THE HAZARD SCENARIOS........................................................................................7
2.1 brittle behaviour.........................................................................................................................8
2.1.1 Rockburst, Spalling....................................................................................................................8
2.2 HIGHLY DEFORMABLE BEHAVIOUR..................................................................................................9
2.2.1 Buckling.....................................................................................................................................9
2.2.2 Squeezing................................................................................................................................10
2.3. PRESENCE OF WATER INRUSH.......................................................................................................11
2.3.1. Water inrush with extremely high inflow (clear water)...............................................................11
2.3.2. Water inflow under high hydrostatic pressure..........................................................................12
2.3.3. Mud inrush..............................................................................................................................12
2.4. OTHER PHENOMENA OR CONSEQUENCES..................................................................................13
2.4.1. Face instability.........................................................................................................................13
2.5. ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS............................................................................................................14
2.5.1. High temperature.....................................................................................................................14
3. TBM TUNNELLING RELATED HAZARDS & MITIGATIONS MEASURES.........................................15
3.1. HAZARDS AND CONSEQUENCES REGARDING THE TBM TYPE...................................................15
3.2. MITIGATIONS MEASURES REGARDING THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE HAZARDS DURING TBM
OPERATION......................................................................................................................................17
4. conclusion........................................................................................................................................21
5. REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................................22
APPENDIX 1 - data base..........................................................................................................................23
4 TBM EXCAVATION OF LONG AND DEEP TUNNELS UNDER DIFFICULT ROCK CONDITIONS

>> Summary
MAIN CONTRIBUTORS
Gerard Seingre (Animator), Magali SCHIVRE (Vice-Animator),
Jens Classen, Brad Grothen, Benjamin Lecomte, Andrea Pigorini, Roberto Schuerch.
MEMBERS OF WG17
Altay Ertin, Kim Hong Moon, Myung Sagong, Einar Broch, Minoru Shimokawachi, Isamu
Otsuka, Nicola Posse, Anne Kathrine Kalager, Daniel Mortfelt, Bahram Safari, Jakob Likar, Tulin
Solak, Ahmet Sirin, Alper Ozdogan, Rafael Garcia Mange, Andy Thompson, Stuart Warren,
David Jurich
TUTOR
Jinxiu (Jenny) Yan
PEER REVIEWERS
Lok Home, Jinxiu (Jenny) Yan, Heinz Ehrbar
ITA Working Group n°17 - Long Tunnels at Great Depth 5

2 >> S
1 Introduction
afety requirements in all stages of construction
Nowadays, tunnels often represent the depth and the length of the tunnel make an nalyse the influence and the
•A
best solution for infrastructure crossing exhaustive exploration technically and consequences of these phenomenon
mountainous regions. In the last decades – economically extremely questionable), regarding the various TBM types;
for example – the need for a more efficient the low grade of adaptability of TBM rovide recommendations for the
•P
freight transport with reduced environmental excavation (compared to conventional design, for the selection of the TBM
impact and the increasing road traffic methods), and the almost impossibility type and for the mitigation measures
has led to strong political and economic of intervention from the surface in case to be implemented on-site.
efforts in the development of new railway of problems make the TBM excavation of
networks through the Alps in Europe (e.g. long and deep tunnels a real challenge for The Appendix of the report is a worldwide
the Lötschberg and Gotthard Base tunnels engineers and contractors. date base collected by the members of
in Switzerland, the Koralm Base Tunnel in the ITA Working Group 17 on the TBM
Austria, the Lyon-Torino between France To this respect it is worth noting the words tunnelling experience in difficult rock
and Italy and finally the Brenner Base tunnel of Prof. Bienawski at the ITA Congress conditions gained over the last 20 years.
between Austria and Italy) or cross-border WTC 2014, in Brazil, for the MEMORIAL-
projects in Latin America like the Central CLOSING-LECTURE [13] : The present report focuses on hazard
Bioceanic Corridor. Moreover, like in the “For tunnel boring machines (TBMs), the scenarios that are associated – or their
Andes and the Himalayas, long tunnels are use of which will be more extensive, the magnitude is by far increased – by the
driven to realize hydropower and irrigation challenges will be to bore tunnels under high overburden. However, as for more
projects (Jinping in China, Olmos in Peru, high rock pressures and high water shallow tunnels, other hazard scenarios
or Neelum-Jhelum in Pakistan) pressures, both in hard rock and in soft may be encountered during the tunnel
ground conditions; these challenges are construction of long and deep tunnels (e.g.
The peculiarities of tunnels through simply extraordinary.” rock falls, swelling, packing of fines around
mountain ranges are the high overburden the shield, karstic phenomena, gripper
and the great length. For economic The key aspect for a successful TBM bracing problems, environmental aspects
reasons, the great length of the tunnels excavation (i.e., the minimization of the as gas, radioactivity or asbestos etc…),
requires the industrialization of the construction risks) is the preliminary and so have to be additionally considered
construction method, thus the use of TBMs identification of all possible hazard in the design phase of a project.
wherever possible. scenarios and the consequent selection In the same idea, the following non-
and design of an appropriate TBM. geological related hazards are not handled
The TBM excavation of long and deep in this report: fatigue of the workforce
tunnels becomes particularly demanding The aim of the present report is to: due to long travel distances, logistic
when tunnel portions of very high • Introduce a common technical difficulties in long tunnels, excessive wear
overburden, bad rock quality or, in the language and a simplified classification and replacement needs for equipment
worst case, the combination of both are on the main geotechnical hazards and materials due to long construction
encountered. Under such circumstances that may be encountered during the times, maintenance needs for the already
extreme phenomena (like squeezing) excavation of long and deep tunnels constructed parts of the project, and
may strongly affect the TBM advance. crossing difficult rock conditions; personnel fluctuation.
Furthermore, the geological uncertainty (the

3
2 >> P
Dlanning
efinitionfor
of the
emergencies
hazard scenarios
According to the working group members, the main hazard scenarios and phenomena that
may be encountered– or their magnitude is by far increased – by the high overburden are the
following:
§2.1 Brittle behaviour :

• Rockburst , Spalling, §2.1.1
§ 2.2 Highly deformable rock mass :

• Buckling, §2.2.1
• Squeezing §2.2.2
§2.3 Presence of water (water inrush) :

• Water inrush with extremely high water inflow, §2.3.1
• Water inflow under high hydrostatic pressure, §2.3.2
• Mud inrush §2.3.3
§2.4 Other Phenomena or consequence :

• Face instability, §2.4.1
§2.5 Environmental conditions :

• High temperature §2.5.1
It is important to remark that these phenomena do not only occur in bad rock conditions:
although tunnelling through fault zones or hydrothermally altered zones represent the most
difficult conditions because of the possible simultaneous occurrence of more hazard scenarios
(e.g. squeezing and face instability), some of these phenomena may affect the excavation in
sound rock (e.g. spalling or rock-burst). The next section provides a detailed definition of the
main hazard scenarios specifying the rock conditions under which the hazards may occur.
Finally, the report gives an indication on the predictability (spatial and temporal) of each
phenomenon. The predictability is rated assuming that a detailed and a good geomechanical
/geological base is available before excavation, and that during excavation works systematic
advance exploration (probe and/or core drilling, possibly geophysics, ..) as well as systematic
analysis of the TBM data, of the collected muck and of the face mapping is carried-out.
The predictability is classified as :

• VERY DIFFICULT TO PREDICT;
• DIFFICULT TO PREDICT;
• POSSIBLE TO PREDICT.

2 >> Definition of the hazard scenarios
2.1. BRITTLE BEHAVIOUR
2.1.1. Rockburst, Spalling
BRITTLE BEHAVIOUR: ROCKBURST, SPALLING
Definition Rockburst is a failure of the rockmass with sudden energy release, which happens due to stress concentration.
Burst occurs parallel to the direction of the maximum compression stress (Fig . 1).
Figure 1. Comparison of the failed areas for tunnels of different size and
shape and corresponding orientation of the in-plane in-situ principal
stresses [3].
This hazard is mainly observed at the tunnel crown or at the side walls
(Fig. 2). Rockburst may also happen at the face, leading thus to a blocky face (Fig. 3).
Rockburst mostly happens approximately 0 to 2 diameters behind the face, and some hours after the front excavation, and stops when the surrounding
rock mass has found a new equilibrium based on the prevailing stress conditions. This phenomena is also known as “strainburst”.
Rockburst can also happen unexpectedly at any time, in a greater distance from the tunnel face, due to unpredictable stress redistribution (induced e.g.
by surrounding excavations, seismic event, etc…).
Brittle rock behaviour has different qualification regarding the intensity level:
• Spalling (low intensity). Failure of the rockmass without projection of materials (so-called onion skin or scaling);
•R
ockburst (high intensity). Failure of the rockmass characterized by a violent and sudden release of energy with shooting/projection of pieces of
rock. In the extreme case, the rockburst may lead to a complete collapse of the tunnel.
The occurrence of such problems may lead to damage of the machine and/or injure the workers. Moreover, the occurrence of rock-burst may lead to a
blocky much which may case difficulties in the mucking-out operations.
Predictability VERY DIFFICULT
• High rock strength

• Massive homogeneous rock mass
Rock conditions
• Brittle rock behaviour (low deformability)
• High stress level (high overburden and/or anisotropy)
Phenomena
Figure 2. Rock spalling in the Aare granite during the construction of the Figure 3. Blocky face observed after rock-burst (Gotthard Base tunnel).
Lötschberg Base tunnel.

2.2. HIGHLY DEFORMABLE BEHAVIOUR
2.2.1. Buckling
BUCKLING
Definition Rupture of the rock along the direction of the foliation or bedding planes leading to bending of the foliation towards the opening (Fig. 4).
This phenomenon is mainly observed in tunnels excavated parallel to the foliation direction and it occurs in the proximity of the tunnel face. Buckling is
particularly intense when the in-situ stress is parallel to the foliation direction.
The consequence of buckling is a highly anisotropic deformation of the excavation profile (convergence perpendicular to the foliation much higher than
parallel to it) and consequently a strong asymmetrical load on the support (e.g. ribs, shotcrete, see Fig. 5) and on the final lining (e.g. segmental lining),
respectively.
Figure 4. Buckling occouring on the upper right
(and bottom left) side wall [8].
The occurrence of buckling may lead to long standstills, particularly when hand-mining works are necessary
Predictability DIFFICULT TO PREDICT
• High stress level (high overburden)

Rock conditions •F
oliated (e.g. cleavage) or jointed rock mass (anisotropy of the rock /rock mass)
• Orientation of the foliation (bedding) parallel to tunnel axis
Phenomena
Figure 5a. Consequences of buckling on ribs and shotcrete support Figure 5b. Consequences of buckling on ribs and shotcrete support :
(Loetschberg base tunnel). rexcavation before final lining.

2.2.2. Squeezing
SQUEEZING
Definition Overstress of the rock mass leading to high convergences or – if hindered by a stiff support – to high ground pressures. Differently to buckling,
squeezing generally causes a convergence of the entire excavation perimeter (see Fig. 6). A peculiarity of squeezing is that it may take days, weeks
or months to fully develop (particularly in water-bearing low permeability rock masses, cf. [7]).
In TBM tunnelling, following problems may occur:

(i) jamming (or trapping ) of the of the shield (Fig. 7);
(ii) jamming of the back-up equipment;
(iii) jamming of the cutterhead;
(iv) inadmissible convergences of the bored profile;
(v) damage of the tunnel support.
The occurrence of such problems may lead to long standstills, particularly when hand-mining works are necessary (in order to free a jammed TBM).
• High stress level (high overburden)

Rock conditions • Low strength rock mass (compared to the in-situ stresses)
• High deformability of the rock mass
Phenomena
Figure 6. Tunnel convergence due to highly intense squeezing – Figure 7. Single shielded TBM jammed in squeezing ground (Uluabat

Gotthard tunnel conventional drive (Sedrun) [15]. Tunnel; Figure courtesy of Werner Burger, Herrenknecht AG).

2.3. PRESENCE OF WATER INRUSH
2.3.1. Water inrush with extremely high inflow (clear water)
EXTREMELY HIGH WATER INRUSH (CLEAR WATER )
Definition Water inrush through discontinuities in the rock mass (such as joints, shear planes or intra-formational shears, or karstic zone) or fault zones (Fig. 8).
Water inrush may occur during excavation or during the execution of exploratory borings.
In deep tunnels, water inflows may be of great volume (Fig. 9, 10) and in extreme cases may cause the flooding of the tunnel. Water inflows may cause
mucking-out problems particularly in combination with soft or highly sheared rock mass (the muck resembles a watery mud that may be difficult to
extract by belt conveyor), and logistics problem.
a b c
Figure 8. (a) Water and fines inrush and trapped water in (b) open dykes or (c) clay layers.
Predictability POSSIBLE TO PREDICT to DIFFICULT TO PREDICT (e.g. in karstic rock)
• Water bearing rock mass

Rock conditions • High permeability rock mass
• (High recharge potential)
Phenomena
Figure 9. Water inflow observed during the construction of Salazie Aval Figure 10. Water inflow observed during the construction of the Lake
(Figure courtesy of JV RAZEL-BEC). Mead Intake No. 3 tunnel (Figure courtesy of JV Impregilo-Salini-Healy,
USA).

2.3.2. Water inflow under high hydrostatic pressure
HIGH WATER PRESSURE
Definition High water pressure at the tunnel elevation. The high pressure increases the probability of occurrence of other geotechnical hazards like face
instability, squeezing and water inrush with washing-out of fines.
A high hydrostatic pressure could require the improvement of the rock mass mechanical properties by means of grouting in order to reduce the
pressure acting on the TBM, support or lining (fig. 11).
In some cases this may not be sufficient and drainage of the rockmass (by means of advance drainage during TBM excavation or by installing a
pervious lining1) should be implemented to reduce the hydrostatic pressure.
Predictability POSSIBLE TO PREDICT the location with survey boreholes and to characterize the intensity

Rock conditions
• High water table
Phenomena
Figure 11. Water pressure acting on the grouted rock mass [10].
1
A similar issue is related to the lining of the tunnel: in deep tunnels the pervious lining concept is usually applied because of the impossibility for the lining to withstand the water
pressure. In this case the drainage details should be properly designed
2.3.3. Mud inrush
MUD INRUSH
Definition Water inflows may wash out fines from discontinuities (such as joints, shear planes or intra-formational shears, or karstic zone or fault zones) causing
thus loosening of the ground and uncontrolled mud inrush.
Mud inrush may occur during excavation or during the execution of exploratory borings.
Mud inflows may cause mucking-out problems, particularly in combination with soft or highly sheared rock mass (the muck resembles a watery mud
that may be difficult to extract by belt conveyor).
Mud inrush with flow of material may also occur behind the shield thus endangering the safety of workers.
Predictability POSSIBLE TO PREDICT to DIFFICULT TO PREDICT (e.g. in karstic rock)

Rock conditions • High permeability rock mass
• (High recharge potential)

2.4. OTHER PHENOMENA OR CONSEQUENCES
2.4.1. Face instability
FACE INSTABILITY
Definition Instability of the rock mass at the tunnel face (Fig. 12a).
The tunnel face instability may be induced by the singular or simultaneous occurrence of poor rock quality, high stress level, high water pressure and
unfavourable orientation of the discontinuities:
•P oor rock quality. Low strength rock masses are typically faults or hydrothermally altered zones (e.g. sandy fault zones, clayey fault zones, blocky rock
mass, …). The tunnel face may become unstable because of an insufficient bearing capacity of the ground.
• H
igh water pressure. Deep tunnels located below the water table are often characterized by high water pressure (and so high destabilizing seepage
forces) that may induce face instability (even of cemented rock mass). The high water pressure increases also the intensity of local instabilities: rock
pieces may be projected from the tunnel face, thus making even face inspections dangerous (cf. Fig. 12b). Finally, water pressure may cause punching
type failures, when acting on low permeability rock layers.
• Rockburst. Sudden and explosive failure of the face, causing damage to the cutterhead and cutters; can lead to sudden blockage of the cutterhead.
• Squeezing. Intense squeezing phenomenon leads to large plastic extrusion of the tunnel face, and in extreme cases to a face collapse.
•U nfavourable discontinuity orientation. The TBM advance in rock mass characterized by closely spaced discontinuity planes running perpendicular/sub-
perpendicular to the tunnel axis is unfavorable because of the formation of a blocky muck (i.e. no chips); the cutting action of the discs produces the
formation of unstable wedges that slide from the tunnel face. This may cause the damage of the cutterhead, cutters, buckets and belt conveyor.
In TBM tunnelling, the occurrence of major face instability causes blocking and possibly damaging of the cutterhead (Fig. 13).
a b
Figure 12. (a) Major tunnel face instability and (b) local face intability under high water pressure (“pop-rock”).
•L
ow strength ground or blocky rock mass (typically fault or hydrothermally altered zones)
Rock conditions • (High water gradients)
• (for face instability induced by rockburst see §2.1.1)
Phenomena
Figure 13a. Blocky face due to high stress level (Lotschberg Base Figure 13b.TBM blocked due to a major face instability (Gotthard Base
tunnel). tunnel [1]).

2.5. ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS
2.5.1. High temperature
HIGH WATER PRESSURE
Definition High rock and water temperatures due to high overburden lead to challenging work conditions, especially when water is flowing from the excavated
rock surface. High demand for venting and cooling installations in all working areas including the cutterhead during maintenance.
Water needs to be caught early in order to not cover large surfaces, over which heat distribution is favoured (as happened in Fig. 14).
Predictability POSSIBLE TO PREDICT with survey boreholes
• High overburden and / or

Rock conditions
• Presence of a high temperature aquifer
Phenomena
Figure 14. High hot water ingress (43°C) at the Gotthard Base Tunnel.

3 >> TBM tunnelling related hazard & mitigations measures
The timely identification of the geotechnical The TBM types considered in the present 3.1. HAZARDS AND CONSEQUENCES
hazards and the understanding of their document are those typically used for the REGARDING THE TBM TYPE
consequences are essential in order to excavation of long and deep tunnels:
minimize the risks during construction •O
pen TBM (Hard Rock TBM with The possible consequences of the main
(for example, by selecting and designing grippers), geotechnical hazards listed in the previous
the most appropriate TBM). The Sections are evaluated thereafter for
• Single Shield TBM (Open mode)
phenomena described in Section 2, if the different TBM types, with respect to
not timely identified, could have dramatic •D
ouble Shield TBM (as reference case, it their impact on the tunneling operations
consequences on the tunnelling works is assumed that the double shield TBM is and on the safety of the workers. The
(delays of months on the time schedule) operated in double shield mode – i.e. with evaluation is based upon the experience
because of the less adaptively offered by lining installation during advance). shared by the working group members.
the mechanized excavation compared to No considerations on the probability of
conventional excavation. Usually in deep tunnel, open mode occurrence have been done in the present
machine are used (i.e. without Chapter.
This chapter identifies and evaluates the pressurization of the tunnel face). However,
consequences on the TBM advance of in specific cases, single shield Multimode The evaluation is based on the definition
the main geotechnical hazards described TBM, which are able to provide a support given in the ITA guideline of WG2,
in Section §2 (Section §3.1) and gives of the tunnel face (e.g. by means of published in 2004 [11]:
recommendations of possible mitigation pressurized slurry) may be required (e.g. :
measures (Section §3.2). The goal of Lake Mead Intake No. 3 Tunnel).
Section 3 is to provide a support to the
designers, constructors and owners All identified consequences and
for the timely identification (from the countermeasures are based upon the
preliminary phases of a tunnel project) of experienced shared among the working
hazards and for the timely planning of the group members over the last decade.
countermeasures.
CONSEQUENCE LEVEL
Not concerned
1 Negligible : No further consideration of the hazard is needed
Unwanted : mitigation measures shall be identified. The measures shall be implemented as long as the costs of the measures are not disproportionate with
2
the risk reduction obtained
3 Unacceptable : The hazard shall be reduced at least to Unwanted, regardless of its mitigation costs

Phenomena Hazards CONSEQUENCE Level Identification of consequences on TBM Location
Not concerned
Double shield
Back-up area
Single shield
Tunnel face
1 Negligible : No further consideration of the hazard is needed
TBM area
Unwanted : Risk mitigation measures shall be identified. The measures shall be implemented as
2
Open
long as the costs of the measures are not disproportionate with the risk reduction obtained
3 Unacceptable : The risk shall be reduced at least to Unwanted, regardless of the costs of risk mitigation
Brittle behaviour: Rockburst, spalling
2 Blocking of the telescopic part of the shield
2 2 Gripper bracing difficulties
Spalling 1 1 Cracks in the segmental lining
1 Damage of the support
2 High cleaning effort in invert (time consuming)
3 3 3 Damage of TBM2
2 2 2 Damage of the cutterhead and/or the cutting tools3
3 3 3 Injuries of the workers during face inspections
Rock-burst 2 2 Damage of the segmental lining4
2 Damage of the support
3 Injuries for workers
3 Damage of the back-up ; Damage of the belt conveyor
Highly deformable behaviour
2 2 2 Jamming of the cutterhead
1 2 3 Jamming and damage of the shield
Squeezing 2 Jamming and damage of the back-up
and buckling 3 3 Overstress of the segmental lining
2 Overstress of the support
3 Inadmissible high tunnel convergences
Presence of water
2 2 2 Reduction of advance rate up to stop
3 3 3 Complete Stop of the TBM due to site flooding
Extremely high water
2 2 2 Mucking-out difficulties
inflow
2 2 Difficulty in Bedding the segment
3 3 3 Hazardous working conditions
2 2 2 Damage of the support or segmental lining
High water pressure
2 2 2 Damage of the drilling equipment
3 3 3 Complete Stop of the TBM due to site flooding5
3 3 3 Hazardous working conditions
Mud inrush
2 2 2 Mucking-out difficulties
2 2 2 Cleaning problem
Other Phenomena and consequences
2 2 2 Block of the cutterhead
2 2 2 Damage of the cutterhead and/or the cutting tools6
Face instability 1 3 3 Injury of workers during inspection and maintenance

2 2 2 Overstress of the support or the segmental lining (due to stress redistribution)
Damage of belt conveyor due to large or sharp edged blocks destroying the belt
2 2 2
and/or the transfer chutes
Environmental aspects
3 3 3 Difficult to unacceptable working conditions
High temperature
1 2 2 Where mortar & shotcrete has to be installed, quick grout hardening could happen
2
Due to dynamic load (impact)
3
Due to unstable blocks rotating with the cutterhead leading to wear
4
Due to asymmetric loads and dynamic load (impact)
5
In the case of mud inrush, the duration of the phenomena is assumed to be shorter than in the case of high water inflows
6
Due to unstable blocks rotating with the cutterhead leading to wear

3.2. MITIGATIONS MEASURES

REGARDING THE CONSEQUENCES Difficulty Level to implement mitigation measure on site
OF THE HAZARDS DURING TBM
OPERATION Not concerned
This section provides recommendations for Easy to implement on site, to be previously considered in the design
the design of the TBM and for the mitigation
measures that can be implemented on- ! Medium difficulty of implementation
site (the latter defining the required TBM ! Very difficult to implement, (could have an impact on the requirements)
equipment needed to be anticipated in the
design).
The following general recommendations •T
he mitigation measures are classified as
The mitigation measures are evaluated with apply : “easy to be implement on site” assuming
respect to their difficulty of implementation •T
he level of difficulty increases with smaller that their implementation was considered
(economic considerations are neglected machines; in the design of the TBM (including TBM
because the mitigation costs are usually •F
or shielded TBM’s the drillings operations equipment). The design issues of the
small compared to the total cost of the have to be considered already in design of TBM are not considered in the evaluation,
project or the intervention cost rising after an the TBM (in order to foresee the required even if the equipment integration leads to
accident) : openings, space, equipment…); complex issues.
Phenomena Level of difficulty to implement

Example of mitigation measures to implement
Hazards the mitigation measure
Not concerned
Double shield
Single shield
Easy to implement on site, to be previously considered in the design
! Medium difficulty of implementation

Open
! Very difficult to implement, (could have an impact on the requirements)
1.1) Selection of the appropriate type of the telescope in order to limit the material accumulation,
and so prevent its blockage
1.2) Operation of the double shield TBM as a single shield TBM. (The prediction of spalling is difficult, so
! these changes of mode will probably require cleaning of the telescopic section before)
1.3) Improvement of the annular void filling in order to stabilize the ring as early as possible:
1- Spalling • by a correct design of the method of injection
! ! • by calibrating the methods on site (changing the materials, the location, using bi-component,
injection from tailskin or segments)
1.4) Installation of radial bolting (friction anchors) in combination with wire mesh and eventually ribs
1.5) Appropriate torque reserve high torque low speed gear)
2.1) Execution of subhorizontal destructive drilling eventually combined with blasting around the perimeter of the
TBM (in order to release the in-situ stresses)
2.2) D
rilling of large diameter holes (approximately 100 mm), as close as possible to the cutterhead (in order to
! release the in-situ stresses)
2.3) Avoid front loading cutterhead; change cutter tools from inside (back-loading cutterhead)
2- Rock-
burst ! ! ! 2.4) Avoid face inspections and work in front of the cutterhead in risk zone.
2.5) Install face inspection cameras and wear cutters tools
2.6) Depending on the level and the location of risk, the presence of workers in the machine zone
(0- 2 diameters) should be analysed (statistics, geological, stress monitoring)
Over high risk stretches, avoid the presence of workers close to exposed rock surfaces during
the first hours lapsing after excavation

Phenomena CLevel of difficulty to implement

Not concerned
Double shield
Single shield

Open

2.7) Passive protection7 :
• Finger shield, that allows bolting in between
• Mesh and bolts with or without ribs; in all cases, these added protection should be done under the
protection of a finger shield
• Create safe and protected walkways
2.8) Installation of radial bolting (friction anchors or other energy adsorbing bolts, e.g. D-bolts) combined with wire
mesh and ribs, and shotcrete in the machine zone
1.1) Selection of the appropriate type of the telescope in order to limit the material accumulation, and so
2- Rock- prevent its blockage
burst 1.2) Operation of the double shield TBM as a single shield TBM.
! (The prediction of spalling is difficult, so these changes of mode will probably require cleaning of the
telescopic section before)
• by a correct design of the method of injection
injection from tailskin or segments)
1.4) Appropriate torque reserve (high torque low speed gear)
Highly deformable behaviour
3.1) Advance exploration to detect the phenomena - systematic sub-horizontal probe drilling survey ahead
of the machine, with registration of parameters, and eventually geophysics survey
3.2) Non-stop operations (requiring modification of the shift system)
3.3) Increase the radial over-cutting (and consequently the annular gap around the shield)
! ! The difficulty to implement the measure increases with the increase of the amount of overcutting (easier
up to 5 cm on radius, more difficult requiring stop of the machine for more than 10 cm on the radius)
3.4) Appropriate shield geometry (conical shape, reduction of the shield length)
The choice of this geometry is a compromise of different constraints and a key point of the design
The use of Double shield TBM is not recommended for small tunnel diameter for which the ratio
between diameter and shield length is unfavourable in respect to jamming
3.5) Lubrication of the shield extrados
3- Squeezing 3.6) Installation of a high thrust force – with sufficiently high factor of safety (overdesign). The high (axial)
and buckling thrust force has to be considered in the design of the lining
3.7) Increase of steel ratio in the pre-cast concrete, use high strength concrete, identify different type of
! ! rings
! ! 3.8) Double lining concept (cf. [4]); this concept allows a reduction of the load acting on the final lining
3.9) Installation of a yielding support (e.g. sliding ribs, openings in the shotcrete, closed or not closed with
! compressive elements)
• by a correct design of the method of injection
injection from tail skin or segments)
3.10) Deformable annular filling in extreme squeezing conditions (the low stiffness of the embedment has to
! ! be considered in the design of the lining)
7
See also the MacNally patented system [16]


Not concerned
Double shield
Single shield

Open
Presence of water
4.1.1) R
eduction of the permeability by grouting ahead of the machine
! ! ! It is suitable to grout before the water flows into the tunnel
Maybe unsuccessful due to the layout imposed by the TBM equipment or by the quantity of water inflow.
4.1-
Extremely 4.1.2) Closed mode operation in the case of using a Single Shield Multimode TBM, and low water table
high water ! (up to 15 bar)
inflow
4.1.3) Installation of a muck chute closure gate
4.1.4) Try to separate the water inflow from the mucking material, in order to manage mucking-out
! ! ! difficulties. Drainage solution could be implemented to collect the water
! ! ! 4.1.5) Reduction of the permeability by freezing (in advance)
! ! ! of the machine, with registration of parameters, and eventually geophysics survey. It is mandatory to
do it with preventer in case of high water pressure
4.2.1) Long advance drainage, at least 2 diameter long, in the periphery and /or front the face of the
! ! ! machine to release the pressure
! ! ! 4.2.2) Improve the ground characteristic by grouting ahead of / and around the machine
4.2- High
water ! 4.1.2 Closed mode operation in the case of a mix-shield TBM and low water table (up to 15 bar)
pressure
! ! ! 4.1.4. Reduction of the permeability by freezing (in advance)
! ! 4.2.3) Improve the ground characteristic by grouting around the segmental lining
! ! ! 4.2.4) Drainage boreholes around the lining
! ! 4.2.5) Double lining concept
In this specific case, all the mitigation measures and level of difficulties identified in section “Extremely high water inflow”
4.1.i and “High water pressure” 4.1.i could be applied
4.3- Mud
inrush 4.3.1) Treatment of the extracted ground by foams (in order to manage mucking-out difficulties)
+ due to
presence of 4.3.2) It is mandatory to clean TBM area:
water
! ! ! • Specific equipment could be required (pumps , excavator, …) in the front zone of the machine;
• The difficulty increases with the inclination of the TBM (descending) and when the diameter decreases
5- Face ! ! ! 4.2.2) Improve the ground characteristic by grouting ahead of / and around the machine
instability 4.1.2 C
losed mode operation in the case of using a Single Shield Multimode TBM and low water table
! (up to 15 bar)
! ! ! 5.1) Advance drainage boreholes in order to release the water pressure


Not concerned
Double shield
Single shield

Open
5.2 ‘Moderate driving’: Reduction of rotation speed and penetration

5-
Face 5.3 Appropriate design of cutterhead: wedges to protect discs; high-resistance wear plates;
high-resistance disc cutters (19-21”); many small bucket openings; closable man holes8
instability
Environmental aspects
6.1 Appropriate design of Ventilation (increase of airflow)
6.2 Foresee modular increase of cooling capacity (systematic equipment of chilled water pipe system in the
! ! ! tunnel and the TBM)
6-
High 6.3 Catch water as soon as possible in order to avoid heat transfer to the air.
temperature
! ! ! (Could be done with advance drainage boreholes)
6.4 Reduce shift time for workers
6.5 Use of additive / formula to delay the grout hardening
8
A modification of the cutterhead during the operation on the TBM is still possible but difficult, time consuming and expensive

4 >> Conclusion
The geological uncertainty (the depth and the length of the tunnel make exploration technically
and economically extremely demanding), the low grade of adaptability of TBM excavation
(compared to conventional methods), and the almost impossibility of intervention from the
surface in case of problems make the TBM excavation of long and deep tunnels a real challenge
for engineers and contractors.
The key aspect for the successful excavation of long and deep tunnels is the identification of all
possible geotechnical hazards already in the preliminary phase of the project (appropriate design
of the TBM and the selection of the right TBM equipment).
The present document gives an overview of the geotechnical hazards that may be encountered
– or their magnitude is by far increased – when excavating at high overburden, it evaluates
the impacts of the hazard on the excavation for the TBM types commonly selected for the
excavation of long and deep tunnels, and finally, it provides recommendations for the design
(and the selection) of the TBM as well for the countermeasures to be implemented on site.
The report is based upon the experience of the WG17 members on projects excavated at great
depth under difficult ground conditions. The reference projects are collected as a worldwide
database in the Appendix of the present document, describing the difficulties arisen during
excavation and the adopted countermeasures.

5 >> References
[1] Tunnelling the Gotthard, Swiss Tunnelling Society, 2016.

[2] Lieb, R.H., Ehrbar, H. 2011. Gotthard Base Tunnel Risk Management for the World’s Longest
Railway Tunnel: Lessons Learnt. In Proc. 37th ITA-AITES WTC, Helsinki, Finland
[3] Martin, C.D., Kaiser, P.K., Mc Creath, D.R. 1999. Hoek-Brown parameters for predicting the
depth of brittle failure around tunnels. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 36, No. 1, 136-
151
[4] Mezger, F., Ramoni, M., Anagnostou, G. 2015. Some concepts for segmental linings in
squeezing rock. In Proc. RETC Rapid Excavation and Tunnelling Conference, New Orleans,
USA, 646-658
[5] Nicola, A., Nickerson, J., Bono, R., Donadoni, N., Anagnostou, G., Schürch, R., Zingg, S.
2014. Lake Mead Intake Tunnel No. 3 – A step beyond the limits. In Proc. Swiss Tunnel
Congress, Lucerne, Switzerland, 166-173
[6] Ramoni, M., Anagnostou, G. 2010. Thrust force requirements for TBMs in squeezing ground
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 25, No. 4, 433-455
[7] Ramoni, M., Anagnostou, G. 2011. The effect of consolidation on TBM shield loading in
water-bearing squeezing ground. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, Vol. 44, No. 1,
63-83
[8] Semeraro, M., Besson, A., Vinnac, A., Schivre, M., Ramond, P., Bochon, A., Bäppler, K.
2014. Rétroanalyse du creusement au tunnelier dans le massif fortement déformable du
tunnel du Fréjus sous forte couverture. In Proc. Congrès AFTES, Lion, France
[9] Grandori, R., Bieniawski, Z.T., Vizzino, D., Lizzardo, L., Romualdi, P., Busillo, A. 2011. Hard
rock extreme conditions in the first 10 km of TBM-driven Brenner exploratory tunnel. In Proc.
RETC 2011, New Orleans, USA , 667-685
[10] Anagnostou, G., Kovari, K. 1994. Zur Dimensionierung von Injektionskoerpern im Tunnelbau.
Weiterbildungskurs, ETH Zürich, Institut für Geotechnik
[11] ITA Guidelines for tunnelling risk management: Working Group No. 2 Research, ITA-AITES,
c/o EPFL, Vol_19_3_217-237 ; Søren Degn Eskesen, Per Tengborg, Jørgen Kampmann,
Trine Holst Veicherts
[12] AFTES Guidelines «Forward probe TBM» - Working Group GT24, AFTES, TOS242_
GT24R2A1
[13] Bieniawski, Z. T. 2014. Quo Vadis Tunnel Engineering? Predicting The Unpredictable,
Memorial Closing Lecture , WTC 2014.
[14] Kaiser Peter, Ground support for constructabilityof deep underground excavations –
Challenge of managing Highly stresses ground in civil and Mining projects –, Muur Wood
Lecture WTC2016
[15] Zbinden P., Schoch Keller S., 2005 , Tunnel de base du Saint-Gothard , Etat de l’avancement
des travaux et du projet, TOS n 190 S, Juillet-Aout 2005
[16] United States Patent McNally et al. (45) Date of Patent: Oct. 22, 2002

>> Annex 1 data base
Worldwide date base collected by the members of the ITA Working

Group 17 on the TBM tunnelling experience in difficult rock conditions Definition of the hazard scenarios
gained over the last 20 years
Highly
Brittle Presence Environment
deformable
List of projects behaviour of water al aspects
behaviour
temperature
Extremely high
Mud inrush
Rock-burst
High water
water inflow
Squeezing
(clear water
instability
pressure
Buckling
Spalling
Diameter
Number Project name Country Type of TBM
Face
[m]
High
1 Lake Mead USA Single shield 7,2
2 Frejus safety tunnel France-Italy Single shield 9,46
3 Gothard base tunnel Hard Rock TBM

Switzerland 8,83
- Lot Bodio with Grippers
4 Gothard base tunnel Hard Rock TBM

Switzerland 9,43
- Lot Faido with Grippers
Hard Rock TBM
* 5 Olmos transandino tunnel Peru with Grippers 5,35
Loetschberg base tunnel,

6 Hard Rock TBM
south section (Steg and Switzerland 9,43
with Grippers
Raron drives
7 Hard Rock TBM

Nant de Drance Switzerland 9,45
with Grippers
La Maddalena exploratory Hard Rock TBM
* 8
tunnel Italy with Grippers 4,5
Uma Oya Multipurpose

* 9 Develepment projetc tailrace
tunnel
Sri Lanka Double shield 4,3
Pahang-Selangor Raw Hard Rock TBM

* 10
Water Transfer Project Malaysia with Grippers 5,2
11 Hida tunnel Hard Rock TBM

Japan 12,8
- main tunnel with Grippers
12 Kargi tunnel Turkey Double shield 9,84
13 Hard Rock TBM with

Niagara Tunnel Project USA 14,4
Grippers
14 Lesotho Haighlands Water Hard Rock TBM

Lesotho 5
Project with Grippers
* NB : These datasheet will be fully completed in the next edition

>> Annex 1 data base - lake mead project 1/3
LAKE MEAD PROJECT
Project characteristics
Country USA Tunnel Length 4,7 km
Client SNWA Ø excavated 7,2 m
Engineers ARUP (geotech. consultants: ETH Zurich) Functionality Water supply
Contractors HEALY-SALINI-IMPREGILO TBM Type Multimode Single shield
Geological conditions
Description Metamorphic rocks over the first and over the central part of the alignment, and sedimentary rocks in the rest. Two major fault zones of completely
sheared rock in the metamorphic rocks at the begin of the TBM drive.
• Metamorphic rocks: crystalline rock comprising mostly granite, granite/pegmatite gneiss, chloritic quartz-feldspar gneiss and quartz monzonite.
Main These rocks are variably intruded by Tertiary volcanic rocks consisting mostly of dacite, diorite, andesite, and some monzodiorite, and are typically
lithologies highly jointed, sheared and faulted.
• Sedimentary rocks: conglomerates, sandstone, mudstone and limestone.
Maximal Overburden 150 m
Hydrological See level 140m above the tunnel axis (i.e.,14 bar of hydrostatic pressure)
conditions
Geological Profile
Representative core
samples
Sheared metamorphic rock Less cemented sedimentary rock
Competent sedimentary rock
MAIN GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS
Definition of the hazard scenarios Occurence Comments

Spalling
Brittle behaviour
Rock-burst
Buckling
Highly deformable
behaviour Jamming of the shield caused by the high deformability and the low strength of the rock mass in
Squeezing softer sedimentary rock formations.
Extremely high water inflow Unmeneageable high water inflow mainly caused by fractured rock mass (i.e., a high secondary
Presence of water (clear water ) permeability) and high recharge potential due to the proximity to the lake.
High water pressure
Mud inrush
Face instability - In correspondence of low-strength (or highly fractured) rock mass.

Environmental High temperature
aspects

LAKE MEAD PROJECT
TBM DESIGN DATA
TBM specific design

• dual-mode TBM able to operate in both open or closed mode (slurry shiled) at high
support pressure (up to 17 bar);
• possibility of drilling and grouting through both the cutterhead and the rear shield.
The auxiliary measures, which were foreseen in order to improve the stability of
the tunnel face, included drainage boreholes (3 or 6) and/or grouting (low strength
grout in order to reduce the water inflow; high strength grout in order to increase the
strength of the ground);
• shield conicity;
• possibility to increase the boring diameter;
• possibility to lubricate the shield extrados.
Shield Characteristics Cutterhead
Shield Length 14 m Nominal cutterhead diameter 7,22 m
Maximinal cutterhead diameter

Maximal shield diameter 7,18 m 7,22 m
(overcut on diameter)
Number (excl. gauge cutters) and
Minimal shield diameter 7,15 m 40 cutterdisks 17’’
Diameter of cutterdisks
Shield conicity on the 30 mm Total Power 2800 KW
diameter
Nominal top void 206,5 mm Maximal Torque 11,7 MNm
Maximal top void 206 mm Torque at maximal speed 10,1 MNm
Breakaway Torque 20,0 MNm
Thrust
Total Breakaway Thrust 100 in high pressure mode MN Nb of Grippers No
Total Service Thrust 70 MN Grippers Thrust No
Number of Thrust jacks 12 (reduced to 8 during excavation) Stress Thrust No
Auxiliarry Thrust No
SUPPORT FINAL LINING
Behind the tunnel face

0,75 m Precast segments
(installation distance)
Ribs erector No Number of segments 5 +1
Sprayed Concrete Robots No Inner Diameter 6,1 m
31 openings trough the cutterhed, 14 trough the

Bolts Rigs Segment Thickness 40 cm
shield (for grouing, and drainage boreholes)
Other support No Ring Length 1,83 m
On the back up Different type of segments 1u
Ribs erector No Steel ratio reinforcement 85 kg/m3
Sprayed Concrete Robots No Other
Bolts Rigs No Thickness None
Other support No Steel Reinforcement None
Observations Solutions & consequencies
Unstable face conditions were observed in the metamorphic rocks (particularly

in correspondence of the major fault zones) when lowering the support The adverse ground conditions affected the progress of the tunneling works because
pressure (as expected in the design phase). In the less-cemented portion they made it necessary to operate the TBM in closed mode at a very high support
of the sedimentary rock formations and in the transition zones close to pressure (15 bar) over a great portion of tunnel. Over the rest of the alignment, the TBM
the metamorphic rocks, local face instabilities were observed during face was operated mainly in open mode in combination with 2-3 drainage boreholes.
inspection.

LAKE MEAD PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE
Unmanageable high water inflows (up to more than 1000 m3/h) in the Closed mode operation at very high support pressure (required in order to compensate the
metamorphic rock units and locally in the harder sedimentary rock units. The hydrostatic pressure).
quantity of water inflow during closed mode operation was estimated using the
TBM as a large scale constant head permeameter.
Jamming of the shield. Contrarily to the expectation, no problems related to Reduction of the support pressure (locally only possible in combination with ground
squeezing (shield jamming) occurred in the sedimentary rocks. The onset of improvement by grouting).
jamming was observed in correspondence of the less competent zones of the
metamorphic
Clogging occurred during closed mode TBM operation in the sedimentary rocks Regular cleaning of the cutterhead openings.
and in the fault zones with a clayey core.
Mucking-out problems occurred in the portion of sedimentary rocks of higher Closed mode operation required in the portions of the sedimentary rocks of higher
permeability. The combination of higher water inflows and sand-like excavated permeability because of mucking-out difficulties (excavated material extracted
material caused mucking-out problems during open mode operations (the muck via slurry lines).
resembled a watery mud that could not be transported by belt conveyor).
Partially sucesfull groutign operations. The excavation in closed mode at very

high support pressure did not allowed a regular maintenance of the cutter-head
and of the slurry system under atmospheric conditions. As a consequence, the
TBM components affected by the closed mode operation and the cutting tools
(particularly in the section where clogging occurred) suffered of major wear. For
these reasons exceptionally demanding interventions at the tunnel face were
required. These required the excavation of a niche in front of the TBM. In order
to reduce the water inflows grouting campaing were carried-out. Although the
extensive grouting operation (with stagered grouting procedure) the water inflow
could be only partially reduced. The main cause was the sub-optimal layout of
the drilling pattern, that did not allowed to grout the central portion ahead of the
tunnel face.
Excessive wear of the gearboxes due to an unfavorable combination of high

thrust force (required in order to compensate the tupport presure) and soft Modification of the main bearing system (gearboxes reduced from 12 to 8 units).
ground (low torque).

>> Annex 1 data base - frejus safety tunnel 1/3
FREJUS SAFETY TUNNEL
Country France - Italy Tunnel Length 12 km
Client SFTRF- SITAF Ø excavated 9,46 m
Engineers SYSTRA (Mandatory) SWS SEA Functionality Railway
Contractors RAZEL-BEC (Mandatory) -BILFINGER BERGER TBM Type Single Shield
Description Highly deformable schistous rock mass under high rock cover, with anisotropic behaviour resulting in asymmetric convergence
Main
lithologies Calc-schist (Phyllitic and Carbonate facies)
Maximal Overburden 1800m
Hydrological No presence of water
conditions
Geological Profile Representative core samples
Schiste samples, perpendicular to the direction of the schistosity, so «plates piles aspects»

Spalling
Brittle behaviour
Rock-burst
Asymmetric convergence phenomenon corresponds to buckling of the schistosity planes; this leads
Buckling to very localized and asymmetric loads on the tail of the TBM and on the tunnel lining as expected.
Highly deformable
behaviour
Squeezing
Extremely high water inflow
(clear water )
Presence of water High water pressure
Mud inrush
Face instability -
aspects
TBM DESIGN DATA
TBM specific design In order to reduce the identified hazard the following
design specifications were adopted:
• a reinforced and short single shield;
• a high breakaway thrust;
Moreover, in order to allow a certain degree of
convergences (and so reduce both the risk of shiled
jamming and the pressure acting on the final lining)
theTBM was designed with the following peculiarities:
• a shield conicity (leading to a very important annular
void);
• the possibility to increase the boring diameter;
• a segmental lining with very strong steel-
reinforcement;
• the capacity of bolting and drilling.

Shield Length 11,2 m Nominal cutterhead diameter 9,46 m
Maximal shield diameter 9,7 m Maximinal cutterhead diameter 9,66 m

Minimal shield diameter 9,31 m Number (excl. gauge cutters) and 63 cutterdisks 17’’
Shield conicity on the 60 mm Total Power 4200 KW
diameter
Nominal top void 275 mm Maximal Torque 17.2 (from 0 to 2,2 tr/mn) MNm
Maximal top void 475 mm Torque at maximal speed 6,3 MNm
Thrust
Total Breakaway Thrust 106160 Nb of Grippers No
Total Service Thrust 67200 Grippers Thrust No
Number of Thrust jacks 2 x 12 Stress Thrust No
(installation distance) xx m Precast segments
Ribs erector No Number of segments 7+1
Sprayed Concrete Robots No Inner Diameter 8,2 m
Bolts Rigs 12 radial position in the front shield Segment Thickness 40 cm
Other support No Ring Length 1,8 m

Ribs erector No Steel ratio reinforcement 85 , 130, and 285 kg/m3
Sprayed Concrete Robots No Other
Bolts Rigs No Thickness None
The design of the TBM proved to be suitable in order to mitigate the risk of Follow up during construction in order to anticipate and to be reactive:
jamming (maximum measured frictional force 50 MN). •S killed team
•C alibration of threshold values
• Iterative procedure (continuous link between design studies and works).
The asymetric load on the lining caused by buckling led to damages The issue of the ring stabilization was
on the lining over portion of tunnel of poorest rock quality. improved by the following modified annular
void filling sequence in order to create
an abutment and the setting of the ring:
•m ortar at the invert immediately during
TBM progress;
•p ea gravel on the sides since ring N-2;
•m ortar at the crown from ring N-5
to ring N-7.
The apparence of cracks was also further reduced by increasing the steel ratio of the
segments. This was achieved designing a third type of segments:
•T ype 3: C35/45
285 kg/m3 steel ratio
•2 x2 SOF-Clips
with reinforced web.

Better manage the buckling phenomena, by efficiently bolting. The position options of the radial drilling machine are a compromise between efficiency of
bolting and the vailable space in the TBM: an optimum position of the bolts (perpendicular to
the schistosity) would have involved increased dimensions of the front of the shield.

>> Annex 1 data base - gotthard base tunnel - lot bodio 1/3
GOTTHARD BASE TUNNEL - Lot Bodio
Country Switzerland Tunnel Length 12 km
Client Alptransit Gotthard AG Ø excavated 8,83 m
Engineers Lombardi SA Functionality Railway
Contractors IMPLENIA -HOCHTIEF -ALPINE BAU -IMPREGILO -CSC TBM Type Hard Rock TBM with Grippers
Description Gneiss layered parallel to the direction of advance; extended fault zones parallel to direction of advance
Main
lithologies Leventina Gneiss

Hydrological Presence of water
conditions
Geological Profile

Spalling
Brittle behaviour
Rock-burst
Buckling
Highly deformable
behaviour Squeezing due to high deformability of the (unexpected) Lucomagno Gneiss; blocking of the
Squeezing complete shield, and subsequent damage to the invert shield segment
Presence of water (clear water )
High water pressure
Mud inrush
Face instability - Unexpected extended fault zones, partly water-bearing

aspects
TBM DESIGN DATA
TBM specific design

TBM DESIGN DATA - TBM specific design
Maximal shield diameter 8,93 m Maximum Cutterhead Diameter 8,93 m

(overcut)
Minimal shield diameter 8,73 m Number and Diameter of Cutters 58 cutter disks 17’’
Shield Extension on the 20 mm Total Power 3500 KW

Diameter
Nominal gap in crown - Cutterhead Torque 6 MNm
Maximum gap in crown -
Thrust
Total Installed Thrust 27000 kN N° of Gripper Shoes 2 No
Total Cutterhead Thrust 14 500 MN Gripper Thrust 70 000 kN
Number of Thrust Jacks 4 No
L1 rock support zone

(dist. from face)
Ribs erector Yes Number of segments None

Shotcrete Robot Yes Inner Diameter None
Drill Rigs 2 radial drill rigs Segment Thickness None
Other rock support wire mesh Ring Length None

In L2 rock support zone Different type of segments None
Ribs erector No Steel ratio reinforcement None
Shotcrete Robot Yes Other cast-in-situ invert concrete
Drill Rigs 2 radial drill rigs Thickness approx. 110 cm
Other rock support No Steel Reinforcement only at cross passages kg/m3
Lot Bodio, Both TBM’s: For both TBM’s the L1 zone was re-designed and equipped with a ring beam transport
The TBM’s encountered unexpected fault zones which ran parallel to the system, a shotcrete robot and new extendable platforms for 360° rock support installation.
tunnels for several 100m. The TBM’s were not equipped for installing heavy The installation of the new equipment took 3 weeks.
rock support, Advance rates improved from 4m/d to 12m/d.
equipment in L1 zone comprised 2 drill rigs and a wire mesh erector.
Necessary rock support included ring beams and shotcrete in the L1 zone.
Due to lack of suitable equipment advance rates were extremely low.
Original Layout and Fault Zone Characteristics:

Lot Bodio, Western TBM: The Western TBM was freed by overmining the crown shield, which took 10 days; with
The TBM got stuck after entering into the Lucomagno Gneiss, a formation the freed crown shield the TBM could be moved; the mined space in the crown was
which had not been expected in the Bodio lot, and which showed increased subsequently filled with shotcrete
tendency for squeezing. The Eastern TBM managed to work through the zone
with high thrust forces, while the Western TBM got stuck even with applying
the maximum available thrust force.
Lot Bodio, both TBM’s: Both TBM’s needed in-situ repair of the invert shield segment, which was realized by
The invert shield segments of both TBM’s were severely damaged by trying to excavating a small channel in the invert to create space for the welders
push the TBM through the squeezing zones.
Continuous mining was adopted for both TBM’s, splitting the 6h maintenance shift into
short intervals to keep the TBM moving constantly

>> Annex 1 data base - gotthard base tunnel - lot faido 1/4
GOTTHARD BASE TUNNEL - Lot faido
Country Switzerland Tunnel Length 14 km
Client Alptransit Gotthard AG Ø excavated 9,43 m
Engineers Lombardi SA Functionality Railway
Contractors IMPLENIA -HOCHTIEF -ALPINE BAU -IMPREGILO -CSC TBM Type Hard Rock TBM with Grippers
Description Fault zone in Gneiss with high overburden

Main
lithologies Streifen (striped) Gneiss of the Gotthard Massive

Hydrological Presence of water
conditions
Geological Profile

overbreak mainly at 11:00h and 05:00h positions, scaling necessary, intense cleaning
Spalling operations in invert
Brittle behaviour
Rock-burst
Buckling
Highly deformable
behaviour Squeezing Squeezing; Adaption of TBM to avoid blockage of the shield
Extremely high water inflow Water and sand inflow during excavation of exploratory tunnel; flooding of tunnel
High water pressure Water pressure predicted up to 200bar; at base tunnel level presumed marble without water
Mud inrush
Face instability - Unexpected fault zone; loose ground in front of TBM; high overburden
aspects
TBM DESIGN DATA
TBM specific design

Maximal shield diameter 9,63 m Maximum Cutterhead Diameter 9,63 m

(overcut)
Minimal shield diameter 9,33 m Number and Diameter of Cutters 66 cutter disks 17’’
Shield Extension on the 30 mm Total Power 3500 KW

Diameter
Nominal gap in crown - Cutterhead Torque 6 MNm
Maximum gap in crown -

Thrust
Total Installed Thrust 27000 kN N° of Gripper Shoes 2 No
Total Cutterhead Thrust 16 500 MN Gripper Thrust 70 000 kN

(dist. from face)
Ribs erector Yes Number of segments None
Shotcrete Robot Yes Inner Diameter None
Ribs erector No Steel ratio reinforcement None

Shotcrete Robot Yes Other cast-in-situ invert concrete
Drill Rigs 2 radial drill rigs Thickness approx. 110 cm
Other rock support No Steel Reinforcement only at cross passages ?? kg/m3
Western TBM: The fault zone was limited in extension, and had to be injected. Injection was executed
The TBM encountered a fault zone with loose material. Thrust force was both from the TBM and an injection cavern from the East tunnel. The TBM was then freed
insufficient to push the TBM, but mucking of material was possible. Trials to by an access tunnel also from the East tunnel. Duration 4,5months.
install umbrella piping were unsuccessful.
Probe drillings were carried out to investigate the extent of the crushed zone:

Lot Faido, both TBM’s: The TBM’s were modified underground in the multi-functional station of Faido. Main
For the Faido lot, squeezing conditions were already predicted for the horizontally new features were new cutterhead and new shield segments, while the main drive
layered Lucomagno Gneiss. Therefore the project foresaw an enlargement of the boring remained the same.
diameter to 9,33m.
In order to further reduce the identified hazard the following design specifications were
adopted for the Faido section:
• Enlarged
boring diameter of 9,43m;
• Radial overcut 10cm;
• Shield lubrication system;
Moreover, in order to allow a certain degree of convergences (and so reduce both the
risk of shield jamming and failure of the primary lining) the rock support was designed
with the following peculiarities:
• Sliding steel ribs TH-type;
• Sliding joints in the shotcrete;
• Compressive elements in the sliding joints;
Finally, continuous mining was adopted whereever possible to guarantee a constant

moving of the shield.
Lot Faido, both TBM’s: During two years prior to the start, a working group of
The Piora zone, containing sugar dolomite under high water client/engineer and contractor worked together with specialists
pressure, was explored with an adit tunnel approx. to develop core and percussion drill preventers suitable to be
300m above the base tunnel alignment. used on TBM’s. The preventers were designed to withstand a
High water pressure was encountered. Probe drillings to base water pressure of 200bar, and were tested in the start caverns
tunnel level encountered stable marble without water. of the TBM’s prior to departure. The Eastern TBM was first to
Preventer-protected drillings were planned to check the zone reach the Piora influence zone, and was stopped 100m short
which extended for approx. 140m. of the presumed rock interface.
A 280m long core drilling was executed under preventer protection
to explore the rock section containing the Piora zone.
The drilling was stopped when it reached the Medelser Granite
on the far side of the Piora marble. No water or squeezing
phenomena were detected, and the TBM’s passed the zone
without difficulty. Duration of the campaign: 3 weeks
(drilling 10 days)

Lot Faido, both TBM’s: When spalling occurred, the risk for rockburst was rated high, and previously designed
Spalling occurred as soon as the TBM’s entered the undisturbed Medelser Gneiss, and rock support was
continued throughout installed for:
the granite sections. Spalling was mainly observed at the 11:00h and 05:00h positions,
perpendicular to the a) low to medium rockburst:
main stress distribution. • Yielding Swellex/Super Swellex Anchors, l = 3,9m
• Wire mesh 2 x 5m, 10cm x 10cm mesh width
• Overlap of wire mesh min. 20cm
• Anchors positioned on overlaps of wire mesh
•H ead protection U-shaped beams in crown approx. 90°
Measures to be carried out over min. 180°, better 270° to protect personnel working
in invert
Advance rates 2m/hour
A lot of loose material fell to the ground behind the shield b) strong to extensive rockburst:
and covered the invert. Cleaning works were improved by TH-type flexible ring beams (ring building times less than
using bobcats as loaders. The secondary belt conveyor was 30 minutes achievable)
modified to be lowered during standstills (maintenance shift etc.) so that the rock
material could be loaded directly. • Wire mesh 2 x 5m, 10cm x 10cm mesh width
• Overlap of wire mesh min. 20cm
• Shotcrete min. 15cm
• Second layer of wire mesh for head protection
If necessary radial pressure relief holes with large diameter
Measures to be carried out over 360°
Advance rates up to 1m/hour

>> Annex 1 data base - olmos transandino tunnel 1/2
OLMOS TRANSANDINO TUNNEL
Country Peru Tunnel Length 12,5 km
Client Government of Peru Ø excavated 5,35 m
Engineers Functionality Water supply
Contractors Odebrecht TBM Type Hard Rock TBM with Grippers
Description Hard to very hard (>250MPa) undisturbed rock

horizontal stresses higher than vertical stresses
Main Extrusive rock types (andesites/dacites)

lithologies intrusive rock types (granodiorites/tuffs)
metamorphic basement rocks (schists)

Hydrological Minor presence of water
conditions
Geological Profile
Spalling spalling and popping in the TBM area

Brittle behaviour
at the face and along TBM, blocky ground conditions, damage to cutterhead, rock support and
Rock-burst TBM installations, large overbreaks
Highly deformable Buckling

behaviour Squeezing
High water pressure
Mud inrush
Face instability -
aspects
TBM DESIGN DATA
TBM Specific Design

>> Annex 1 data base - olmos transandino tunnel 2/2
OLMOS TRANSANDINO TUNNEL
Shield Length Nominal cutterhead diameter 5,35 m
Maximal shield diameter Maximum Cutterhead Diameter

(overcut)
Minimal shield diameter Number and Diameter of Cutters 35 cutter disks 17’’
Shield Extension on the Total Power 2205 KW
Diameter
Nominal gap in crown Cutterhead Torque 3,5 MNm
Maximum gap in crown

Thrust
Total Installed Thrust N° of Gripper Shoes 2 No
Total Cutterhead Thrust 9345 MN Gripper Thrust


(dist. from face) Precast segments
Ribs erector Yes Number of segments invert segment only
Shotcrete Robot No Inner Diameter None
Ribs erector Steel ratio reinforcement None
Shotcrete Robot Other cast-in-situ invert concrete
Drill Rigs Thickness
Other rock support Steel Reinforcement
Observations
Solutions
& consequencies
* To be completed in next edition

>> Annex 1 data base - loetschberg base tunnel 1/3
Loetschberg base tunnel, south section (Steg and Raron drives)
Country Switzerland Tunnel Length 8,9 and 10,0 km
Client BLS Alptransit AG Ø excavated 9,43 m
Engineers IGWS joint venture (BG, SRP, KBM, Stucky, GEOS,…) Functionality Railway
Contractors Matrans joint venture: Marti, Walter Gruppe, Porr, Bealfour Beatty TBM Type Hard Rock TBM with Grippers
Old cristaline gneisses and schists of the Aar massiv basement,
Description Autochtonous of Gampel-Baltschieder (Trias Limestone and Dolomite, Lias and Dogger Limestones),
Central Aar massive (Granodiorite, Granite, Gneisses and Schists)
Sericite chlorite Gneiss of old cristaline (Central Aar massive basement, massive to schistose) (only in the Raron drive)
Trias Limestone and Dolomite, (only in the Raron drive)
Main Lias and Dogger Limestones (marly and calcareous shales, marl and limestones, massive limestone)
lithologies Granodiorite of Baltschieder,
Granite of Central Aar massive (very massive),
Sericite chlorite gneisses and schists of old cristaline (Central Aar massive basement with some sections of amphibolitic gneisses with asbestos in fractures)
Hydrological Karstic in the Limestones of the Autochtonous; the central Aar massiv was very dry probably due to the very hign overburden
conditions
Geological Profile ‘AAR MASSIF
Sericite chloricite gneisses
and schists
biotite and sericite gneisses
AUTOCHTONOUS
Marly and calcareous shales
Lias marls and limestones
Dogger limestones
AAR MASSIF
Central Aar granite
Granodiorite
Amphibole bearing gneisses
Cellular dolomite (Trias of Autochtonous Disk formation in granitic core (high overburden)
Gampel-Baltschieder)
Spalling Severe spalling in the central section in granodiorite, granite and gneiss.
Brittle behaviour
Rock-burst Light rock-burst in the central section in granodiorite, granite and gneiss.
Severe buckling in the lias limestone, that was supposed to be a good rock, due to the
Buckling unfavourable orientation of the schistosity. The TBM was near to be blocked. The section was
Highly deformable reprofiled afterward
behaviour
Squeezing
High water pressure Break of one parament due to presence of a karst near the tunnel wall
Mud inrush
Due to the high stress level, frequent and sudden apparition of blocky ground section in good
Face instability - rock.
Sometime they were no cutter mark on the face.
Environmental High temperature Asbestos in the amphibolitic gneisses
aspects

TBM DESIGN DATA
TBM specific design Typical hard rock open TBM with two grippers.
One bottom segment to install the rail for the access trains. The
trailers were also supported by the rails.
TBM length 20m, Total TBM length with trailers 142 m.
80m deep probe drilling equipement (inclination of 7-12% over the
TBM-axis)
The cutter head was adapted during excavation against blocky
ground and high abrasivity (3 stops of several weeks for cutter
head reparations for each drive).
Installation of a first support consisting of swellex bolts and wire
mesh or HEB 180 ribs, 5m behind the face (directly after the
shield).
Installation of shotcrete approx. 50m behind the cutter head
Shield Length 4m Nominal cutterhead diameter 9,43 m

Maximal shield diameter 9,63 m
Minimal shield diameter (53x1 + 4x 2) disks 17’’
Shield conicity on the Total Power 3500 KW
diameter
Nominal top void Maximal Torque 8885 MNm
Maximal top void Torque at maximal speed 5570 MNm
Breakaway Torque 14216 MNm
Thrust
Total Breakaway Thrust 22 800 MN Nb of Grippers 2
Total Service Thrust 16 000MN Grippers Thrust 60 000 kN
Number of Thrust jacks 4 Stress Thrust 3-4 MPa

(installation distance) 5m Precast segments
Ribs erector 1 Number of segments No segment

Sprayed Concrete Robots No Inner Diameter No segment
Bolts Rigs 2 Segment Thickness No segment
Other support wire mesh Ring Length No segment
On the back up Different type of segments No segment
Ribs erector No Steel ratio reinforcement No segment
Sprayed Concrete Robots 2 Other Cast in situ
Bolts Rigs 2 Thickness min. 25
Buckling in foliated The support was performed with HEB

limestone due to 180 steel girder every m’ . Concrete
unfavourable was poured between the stell girder
orientation. In middle directy after installation. Additional
orientation the Swellex were intalled to allow the
excavation gave no concreting operation.
problem, but in direction 3 years after the convergence
severe buckling perpendicular to foliation was 60 cm.
occured and the TBM A 200m section was reexcavated
was near to be blocked. before installation of the permanent
The advance fall to concrete lining.
54m/ per month.
The east tunnel
(Raron drive) was bored
in parallel with a D+B
tunnel on 4.5 km.
On the other tube (conventional excavation) the management of the buckling
was easier.

Vertical stress induced spalling ont walls due to high overburden. In extreme Adaptation of the position of the ancors. Use of yelding swellex. Prediction of risk for the
falls no cutters marks were visible on the face. second drive based on the observations done on the first TBM drive
Frequent and sudden blocky fronts due to high stress. In extreme falls no Adaptations and reinforcement of the cutter head (protection of the disc cutters, new
cutters marks were visible on the face. Frequent tears of the band conveyors. plates against abrasion).
Dammages of the disk cutters. High abrasion. Adaptation of the transitions between band conveyors to avoid blocking due to the
blocks and longitudinal tears of the band conveyors.
Blocks on band conveyor during boring
Tunnel face without any mark of disc cutter

>> Annex 1 data base - nant de drance 1/2
Nant de Drance, Pumped storage power plant, main access tunnel
Country Switzerland Tunnel Length 5,6 km
Client Nant de Drance SA (Alpiq, CFF, IWB, FMV) Ø excavated 9.45-9.48 m
Engineers AF-Consult, Pöyry Functionality Road
Contractors GMI joint venture, Marti Implenia TBM Type Hard Rock TBM with Grippers
The tunnel is located in the Aiguilles Rouges Massif, mainly composed of the following units: Vallorcine granite, orthogneisses and metagraywackes
Description (paragneiss and micaceous schists). Heterogeneous sediments of the Permo-Carboniferous period (gray shale sandstone, sandy shale) for a short
section (180 m) near the portal
Permo-carboniferous sediment: carbonferous schists
Main Vallorcine granite : massive granite, light radioactive
lithologies Migmatitic gneiss : hornfels, hornfels-gneiss and banded gneiss
Orthogneiss: massive granitic gneiss sometime withous any joint
Paragneiss: finely banded metagreywacke and dark brown colored micaschists

Hydrological Probably more than 40 bars insitu hydrostatic pressure
conditions
Geological Profile

Indication of light spalling over some sections (distinction between light spalling and light bucling
Spalling in gneiss not always evident)
Brittle behaviour
Rock-burst
Buckling Light buckling on some section. The support on the lower right parament has been reinforced.
Highly deformable In one tunnel the support was destroyed after the excavation of a parallel cavern.
behaviour
Squeezing
Presence of water Extremely high water inflow Due to the proximity of a big arch dam (Emosson) close to the project, water flood control was
(clear water ) essential. High water inflow has been prevented by cement grouting ahead the TBM cutter head.
High water pressure Max. water pressure 32 bars was observed during excavation phase
Mud inrush
Face instability -
Environmental High temperature Radioactive rock to manage (sytematic measurement to ensure the safety of the workers).
aspects Arsenic in rock, mud and water.
Reuse of one of the Loetschberg base tunnel TBM. Typical hard

rock open TBM with two grippers. The trailers design has been
adapted to the tunnel inclination of 12 %. Main change was the
suppression of the bottom segment (access by truck insted of
acces by rail at the Loetschberg).
TBM length 20m, Total TBM length with trailers 142 m.
80m deep probe drilling equipement (inclination of 7-12% over the
TBM-axis)
25m deep injection drilling equipement (installation on the TBM on
TBM specific design request).
Hard rock cutter head adapted for blocky ground and high
abrasivity (according to the Loetschberg experience).
Installation of a first support consisting of swellex bolts and wire
mesh or HEB 160-200 ribs 5m behind the face (directly after the
shield). Shotcrete only in fault zone.
Installation of the final support consisting of rock bolts and
shotcrete approx. 50m behind the cutter head.

>> Annex 1 data base - nant de drance 2/2
Nant de Drance, Pumped storage power plant, main access tunnel
Shield Length 4m Nominal cutterhead diameter 9,45 m
Maximal shield diameter Maximum Cutterhead Diameter 9,48 m

(overcut)
Minimal shield diameter Number and Diameter of Cutters (53x1 + 4x 2) disks 17’’
Shield Extension on the Total Power 3500 KW
Diameter
Nominal gap in crown Maximal Torque 8885 MNm
Maximum gap in crown Torque at maximal speed 5570 MNm
Breakaway Torque 14216 MNm
Thrust
Total Service Thrust 16 000 MN Gripper Thrust 60 000 kN
Number of Thrust Jacks 4 Stress Thrust 3-4 MPa
Auxiliarry Thrust None

5 Precast segments
Ribs erector 1 Number of segments None

Sprayed Concrete Robots 1 Inner Diameter No segment
Bolts Rigs 2 Segment Thickness No segment
Other support wire mesh Ring Length No segment
On the back up Different type of segments No segment
Ribs erector Steel ratio reinforcement No segment
Sprayed Concrete Robots 1 Other
Bolts Rigs 2 Thickness None
Other support Steel Reinforcement None
Management of ground water was required in order to limit the settlement of the Systematic grouting injection ahead of the cutter head. Lenght of injection borings was
180m Emosson arch dam. 26 m. Packers were installed at 10 m in the boreholes. After grouting of one section, the
Systematic destructive probe drillings to detect water in advance. Water with 32 advancement step was 6 m. A section of 300m with 3 faults of 10-20 m with high water
bars was found in in a probe drilling. Decision to stop the TBM and to begin injection. pressure was succefully injected and crossed in 9 months.
Nant de Injection pattern :

Drance only 12 hole were
access tunnel bored and grouted
cross section. during the first
Due to low step.
trafic during The decision of
service, the grouting the other
support is holes was done
used as final after analysis of
lining. the results.
Details of the injection of the veudale fault zone:

23 probe drilling (max 200m)
13 injection vaults
10’800 m injection drilling, 70 to cement
Limitation of groundwater flow 20-30 l/s
Stabilisation of hydrostatic water pressure
Total duration : 9 months
Core probing in a fault zone (RMR = 0), water pressure 32 bars

>> Annex 1 data base - la maddalena exploratory tunnel 1/2
La Maddalena exploratory tunnel
Country Italy - France Tunnel Length 7597 km
Client TELT Ø excavated 4,5 m
Engineers GEODATA (leading company) - SOTECNI Functionality Other
CMC (leading company) - STRABAG
Contractors TBM Type Hard Rock TBM with Grippers
- COGEIS - GEOTECNA
Description Complex geology in the Ambin Massif of the western Alps mainly composed of micaschists and gneisses, with high overburdens of up to 2000 m
and temperatures approaching 50 °C.
Main
lithologies Aplitic gneiss (AMC) - Alternation of albitic gneiss and quartz micaschist (AMD) - Micaschists (CLR)
Hydrological Maximum amount of water inflow 30 l/s
conditions
Geological Profile
Representative core
samples
CLR AMD
AMC
Spalling
Brittle behaviour
Rock-burst
Buckling
Highly deformable
behaviour
Squeezing
High water pressure
Mud inrush
Face instability -
aspects

>> Annex 1 data base - la maddalena exploratory tunnel 2/2
La Maddalena exploratory tunnel
TBM DESIGN DATA
TBM specific design Open type TBM

The peculiarities of the machine allow:
• high feed rates in the presence of hard rock, thanks to the high installed power
• operate forward probing of medium length, ahead of TBM
• install bolts a short distance from the front
• ensure the immediate support of the roof in presence of poor soils with installation
of panels
• launch medium-long boreholes which will be detecte and investigate geological
structures
Shield Length Nominal cutterhead diameter 6,3 m

Maximal shield diameter 6,5 m
Minimal shield diameter 41 cutterdisks 17’’
Shield conicity on the Total Power
diameter
Nominal top void Maximal Torque 2082,888 MNm
Maximal top void Torque at maximal speed 2083 MNm
Breakaway Torque
Thrust
Total Service Thrust 12 757 MN Grippers Thrust 1800
Number of Thrust jacks 4 Stress Thrust
Auxiliarry Thrust

5m Precast segments
Ribs erector Number of segments
Sprayed Concrete Robots Inner Diameter
Bolts Rigs Segment Thickness
Other support Ring Length
On the back up Different type of segments
Ribs erector Steel ratio reinforcement
Sprayed Concrete Robots Other
Bolts Rigs Thickness
Other support Steel Reinforcement
Unstable face and roof condition: MCNALLY Support System:

detachment of block located near the tunnel face due to the high axial stress in order to contain the fractured rock and provided a continuous support during the
and the intersection of many joint systems parallel and perpendicular at the excavation, the MCNALLY - system is been adopted. The system is installed in the roof and
tunnel axis. in the later section recovering an arch around 120°; it consists of steel slats anchored to the
roof of the tunnel by steel straps and rock bolts, effectively containing loose and unstable
rock. These steel slats form an umbrella that allows to work in a safe condition and install
the section support (bolts, ribs and mesh).

>> Annex 1 data base - uma oya 1/3
Uma Oya Multipurpose Development Project Tailrace Tunnel
Country Sri Lanka Tunnel Length 3500 km
Client Ministry of Power and Energy (Gov. Sri Lanka) Ø excavated 4,305 m
Engineers Pöyry / Mahab Ghodss Functionality Water supply
Contractors 0 TBM Type Double Shield
Description Quick change of undifferentiated charnockitic gneisses and garnet-quartz-feldspar gneisses, interlayered with marbles, calc-silicate gneisses, quartz-
rich gneisses, biotite hornblende gneisses. Close to the portal of the tailrace tunnel, frequent zones of highly weathered rock mass and shear zones
Main
lithologies Charnockitic and garnet-quartz-felspar gneisses and marbles
Hydrological High water ingress possible at shear- and fracture zones due to high secondary permeability
conditions
Geological Profile
Bedrock group 1: Marbles and Calc-Silicate Bedrock group 2 (2.1): Biotite-Hornblende Gneiss
Gneisses
Representative core
samples
Bedrock group 2 (2.2): Garnet Gneisses Bedrock group 2 (2.4): Charnockitic Gneisses
Bedrock group 3: Quartz-rich Gneisses to pure Quartzites


Spalling
Brittle behaviour
Rock-burst

behaviour Squeezing
Presence of water Extremely high water inflow

(clear water )
High water pressure
Mud inrush
Highly weatered rock mass (nearly residual soil) at shear- and fracture zones cause relatively
large overcutting and difficulties with backfilling. At passages of highly weathered/sheared
Face instability - zones, gripper could not be used, forcing single mode operation. Due to difficult backfilling
conditions segments show large deformations after advancing in single mode (jack forces on
segments but no lateral support of segments).
Environmental aspects High temperature
TBM DESIGN DATA
TBM specific design Double shield TBM :

Cutter head of the TBM with 27 disc cutters.
TBM has two Grippers, with which the machine can be braced on to the (freshly bored) surrounding rock mass. The cutter head can be pushed
into the rockface during boring by use of the Main Thrust Cylinders. This allows simultaneous building of the lining at the rear of the TBM (dual
mode).
If the rock mass is not strong enough to use the grippers, than the TBM is able to gradually push itself forward by generating a thrust force on the
concrete lining with its Auxiliary Thrust Cylinders, in which case simultaneous excavation and ring building is not possible (single mode).

Minimal shield diameter 4,18 m (19x1 + 4x 2) 27 disks 17’’
Shield conicity on the - Total Power 1250 KW
diameter
Nominal top void 130 mm Maximal Torque 2559 MNm
Maximal top void 200 mm Torque at maximal speed 1706 MNm
Breakaway Torque -
Thrust
Total Service Thrust Grippers Thrust
Number of Thrust jacks 8 main / 8 auxiliary Stress Thrust
Auxiliarry Thrust

(installation distance) - Precast segments
Ribs erector - Number of segments 4
Sprayed Concrete Robots - Inner Diameter 3,6 m
Bolts Rigs - Segment Thickness 25 cm
Other support - Ring Length 1,2 m
Ribs erector Steel ratio reinforcement No

Sprayed Concrete Robots - Other Cast in situ
Bolts Rigs - Thickness 0,25 cm
Other support - Steel Reinforcement 70-100 kg/m3

Drilling / Bolting / Injection Capacity:

Probe drilling was necessary frequently. However due to the position of the
probe drill installation on the erector at the back of the shield, probe drilling
could not be performed efficiently. Apart from required time for installing
equipment and preparing for the probe drills a relatively large distance had to
be drilled before reaching the rock mass in front of the TBM. No bolting
Annular void filling:

Especially in zones where rock mass is highly fractured and/or weathered
of large overcut/overbreak during excavation occurred. Backfilling up to the
back of the machine up to ring N-2 proved problematic even with pea gravel.
Furthermore, placement of backfilling holes in the segment was not optimal
(no hole at center of top segment). Insufficient back filling caused relatively
large deformations of the lining, while advancing in single mode (high
pressures in auxiliary thrusters).

>> Annex 1 data base - pahang selangor raw 1/2
Pahang Selangor Raw Water Transfer Project
Country Malaysia Tunnel Length 44,6 km
Client Ministry of Green Technology Malaysia Ø excavated 5,2 m
Engineers TEPSCO, SMEC, SMHB Functionality Water supply
Contractors Shimizu-Nishimatsu-UEM-IJM JV TBM Type Hard Rock TBM with Grippers
Description Main Range Granite (Trassic period); and Karak Formation (Silurian-Devonian Period), however, all TBM section was within the Granite.
Main Mainly strong to very strong, massive to widely jointed, fresh to moderately decomposed Granite, ranging from fine grained to coarse porphyritic
lithologies Granite; locally at fault zone and quartz dykes intrusion area, rock was weak to very weak, blocky, filled with thick clay and/or completely
decomposed

Hydrological Increase of water inflow within short period of time were anticipated at major fault zone area.
conditions
Geological Profile
Spalling
Brittle behaviour
Rock-burst
Buckling
Highly deformable
behaviour
Squeezing
Presence of water Extremely high water inflow

(clear water )
High water pressure
Mud inrush
Face instability -
aspects
TBM DESIGN DATA
• TBM shall be open-type or shield-type having a 5.2m diameter cutterhead with a complete backup system designed for intergrated operation with
TBM specific design minimum maintenance periods for excavating more than 10km long tunneling distance through massive, hard, and abrasive rock conditions.
• Numer of cutterdisks shall be more than 40nos for 17» cutterdisk.

>> Annex 1 data base - pahang selangor raw 2/2
Pahang Selangor Raw Water Transfer Project
Shield Length - Nominal cutterhead diameter 5,2 m

Maximal shield diameter - 5,23 m
Number (excl. gauge cutters) and Double cutter: 17’’(8nos)
Minimal shield diameter -
Diameter of cutterdisks Single cutter: 19’’(19nos)
diameter
Nominal top void - Maximal Torque 4,1 MNm
Maximal top void - Torque at maximal speed 1,8 MNm
Thrust
Total Breakaway Thrust - Nb of Grippers 2 nos
Total Service Thrust 14 000 MN Grippers Thrust 18 150 kN
Number of Thrust jacks 2 Stress Thrust No
Auxiliarry Thrust Invert thrust cylinder

(installation distance) 5m Precast segments
Ribs erector 1 nos Number of segments -

Sprayed Concrete Robots 1 nos Inner Diameter -
Bolts Rigs 1 nos Segment Thickness -
Other support Ring Length -

On the back up Different type of segments -
Ribs erector - Steel ratio reinforcement -
Sprayed Concrete Robots - Other
Bolts Rigs - Thickness Depending on rock class, none to 25 cm
Other support - Steel Reinforcement 35 kg/m3
Tunnel seismic prediction and probe drilling were carried out to detect the actual fault/weak
Collapsing ground at major fault zone area boundary. Control excavation and early application of fiber mortar (7m behind tunnel
face), steel rib, and/or injection of forepoling were carried out.
Increased the drainage capacity (max 31.5m3/min at tunnel, max 40m3/min at TBM base)
Excavation through constant massive and installed back-up generator to ensure continuous operation in order to prevent TBM
groundwater inflows (max 24.6m3/min) inundation. Seriously impacted the construction programme due to the mucking out
of sediment materials which flowed with ingress water.
Excavating through high rock temperature Installed water-cooled air-conditioner to the TBM locomotives, passenger car, rest room and
increased water-cooled air cooling system in the TBM working area. These adverse physical
(Max 55°C) condition drastically decreased the TBM and workers productivity.
Applied fiber mortar and wire-mesh to avoid «flying rock» from hitting the worker ; on
the other hand, all personnel were prohibited to enter the cutterhead immediately after
Rock burst cessation of TBM excavation to
allow rock-bursting inducing stresses to equilibrate.

>> Annex 1 data base - hida tunnel - main tunnel 1/3
Hida tunnel - main tunnel
Country Japan Tunnel Length 10.7（km (TBM section 4.3)
Client Japan Highway Public Corporation Ø excavated 12,84 m
Engineers Functionality Road
Contractors Taisei-Nishimatsu-Sato JV TBM Type Hard Rock TBM with Grippers
Description very hard but includes many discontinuities

Main
lithologies
Maximal Overburden about 1000 m
Hydrological Large amount of inflow from Nohi Rhyolites
conditions Maximum hydraulic pressure is 6MPa behind clay layer.
Geological Profile
Chart of the joint density contour

Brittle behaviour
Brittle behaviour
Rock-burst Total: 12 times Tunnel face: 4 time
Buckling
Highly deformable
behaviour
Squeezing
Presence of water (clear water ) Maximum inflow : 11t/min from boring
High water pressure Maximum pressure 6 MPa
Mud inrush
Face instability - The blocks of rock fall out in the shape of a dome ahead of the face
aspects
TBM DESIGN DATA
TBM specific design
Improved open-type
Excavation diameter Ø 12.84m
Machine length 19.5m
Machine weight 310tons

Maximal shield diameter 12,84 m -
Number (excl. gauge cutters) and Center : 4nos, Inner : 77nos, gauge :
Minimal shield diameter 12,84 m
Diameter of cutterdisks 3 nos 19i nch
diameter
Nominal top void 50 mm Maximal Torque 31,84 MNm
Maximal top void 100 mm Torque at maximal speed -

Thrust
Total Breakaway Thrust 33,7 MN Nb of Grippers 2
Total Service Thrust Grippers Thrust 44 100 kN
Number of Thrust jacks 6 Stress Thrust 2,45 Mpa shoe pressure
Auxiliarry Thrust 2 943 × 6 kN for friction cut



Ribs erector Number of segments

Sprayed Concrete Robots Inner Diameter 1,2 m
Bolts Rigs Segment Thickness 25 cm
Other support Ring Length 1m

On the back up Different type of segments Invert liner u
Ribs erector Steel ratio reinforcement 180 kg/m3
Sprayed Concrete Robots Other Cast in situ
Bolts Rigs Thickness 30 cm
Other support Steel Reinforcement SFRC kg/m3
Due to the structural features of discontinuities and high in situ stress states, the The forepilings have been applied in the zones where the joint density is large. Though the
blocks of rock fall out in the shape of a dome ahead of the face. large strain has been generated in front of face in the zones where the forepiling has been
adopted, it is shown quantitatively that the stability of face has been secured by the effect
of the grout injection.
Tbm
cutter
head
Tunnel
Face

>> Annex 1 data base - kargi 1/3
Kargi
Country Turkey Tunnel Length 11,872 (7,869 km TBM)
Client Kargi Kizilirmak Enerji A.S. (Statkraft) Ø excavated 9,84 m
Engineers Gülermak A.S Functionality Water supply
Contractors Gülermak A.S TBM Type Double Shield
The tunnel route lies very close to the East-West trending main branch of the worldwide known, active North Anatolian Fault Zone and within highly
Description tectonized area where complex ophiolitic/metamorphic rock formations are dominating around the region covered by younger volcanic and volcano-
sedimentary unit. TBM encountered between km:4+003-km:6+632 Marine Conglomerate, km:6+632-km:9+500 Imbricated Metamorphites and
km:9+500-km:11+872 Ophiolitic Complex.
Main Beynamaz Volcanites: Diorite, basaltic andesite, pyroclastic rocks. Orencik Formation: Marine sediments, conglomerate.
lithologies Gokgedik Formation: Conglomerate, sandstone, mudstone and shale. Vezirhan Formation: Micritic limestone and mudstone.
Ophiolitic Complex: Tectonized serpantinite, gabbro, chert, pelagic limestone and shale. Kunduz Metamorphics: Marble, Phyllite, metabasite.

Hydrological Local ground water flows in crystalline limestone-marble, meta-pelite (Meta-siltstone, shale, phyillite) contacts were recorded
conditions
Geological Profile
Representative core samples: Borehole SDB-3 (km:8+870)
Depth: 58,0 - 62,0 m.

Formation: Kunduz methamorphics Marbles
Description: Strong rock mass, medium to
good quality, several weakness zones due to
overthrust
Depth: 241,0 - 245,0 upper box, and 280,0- Depth: 471,0-480,0. Kunduz Metamorphics
235,0 lower box, Kunduz methamorphics Metapelites - Faultzone. Inorganic clays of high
Metapelites. Weak rock mass, medium to poor plasticity, fat clays. Locally inorganic clays of low
/ very poor quality, heavily jointed, several major to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays,
waekness zones due to overthrust and shear. In lean clays with high swelling and squeezing
some sectors the extracted rock appers fresh capacity.
and with lightly jointed (see lower box)

Spalling
Brittle behaviour
Rock-burst
Buckling
Highly deformable
behaviour All shield squeezing and CH blockage were recorded at extensively tectonized ophiolitic rocks
Squeezing (km:9+500 - km:11+872) with minimum 7 days to maximum 52 days.
High water pressure
Mud inrush
Face instability -
aspects

Kargi
TBM DESIGN DATA
TBM specific design For the initial TBM plan it was foreseen segment lining for weak sections
roughly some 3,2 km at outlet side (km:11+872 -km:8+600). For last
section between Km 0+000 to km:8+600 TBM planned to work with
grippers only like hard rock TBM utilizing shotcrete and conventional
supports such as bolts, mesh etc. where required.
Due to problems encountered in TBM tunneling construction plan
changed. In addition to modifications to TBM to cope actual conditions
properly, another conventional attack face from inlet side employed to
improve tunneling rates.
Additional studies and expertise works carried out by owner and
contractor for identification of problems and plan counter measures
/ preventions and to organize remedial works. Finally power tunnel
constructed as;
• k m:0+000 to km:4+003 conventional method
• k m:4+003 to km:11+872 TBM (all with precast segments, gripper
never used)
Shield Length 14 m with cutterhead Nominal cutterhead diameter 9,84 m

Minimal shield diameter 9,656 m 63 no and 17/20»
Shield conicity on the 50 mm Total Power 4810 (up to 5180 KW)
diameter
Nominal top void Maximal Torque 19 (at 1,9 rpm) MNm
Maximal top void Torque at maximal speed 8,475 (at 5 rpm) MNm
Breakaway Torque 28 (at 1,9 rpm) MNm
Thrust
Total Breakaway Thrust 67,88 (at 450 bar) MN Nb of Grippers 2
Total Service Thrust 52,04 (at 345 bar) MN Grippers Thrust 71500 per each
Number of Thrust jacks 12 Stress Thrust 5

Total Breakaway Thrust 121,30 MN (at 450 bar) Auxiliarry Thrust 11 768 kN
(with auxiliary)
Total Service Thrust (with 93,00 MN (at 345 bar)
auxiliary)
Number of Thrust Jacks 18
auxiliary)
Behind the tunnel face Precast segments

(installation distance) 12 m
Ribs erector not used Number of segments 6 + 1 (key stone)
Sprayed Concrete Robots not used Inner Diameter 8,7 m
Bolts Rigs not used Segment Thickness 40 cm
Other support precast segment liner Ring Length 1,5 m
Ribs erector not used Steel ratio reinforcement 73 and 148 kg/m3
Sprayed Concrete Robots not used Other
Bolts Rigs not used Thickness None
Other support precast segment liner Steel Reinforcement None

Kargi
km:11+756 - CH Blockage, 45 days - maximum overburden: 35 m. All squeezing and CH blockage phenomenas occured at extensively tectonize ophiolitic
rocks (Serpantinite, gabbro, chert, pelagic limestone, shale and thrust faults. Note that this
km:10+795 - Shield squeezing, 7 days - maximum overburden: 147 m. phenomena occured somitimes in low overburden, thus most probably horizantal stress
km:10+671 - CH Blockage, 38 days - maximum overburden: 170 m. is greater than vertical stress.The TBM rescued with recovery galleries, and below listed
G74modifications applied by time.
km:10+478 - Shield squeezing, 15 days - maximum overburden: 241 m.
•P robe Drilling System: Before modification, drilling is carried out by hand and only
km:10+444- CH Blockage, 17 days - maximum overburden: 251 m. penetration rate is visually monitored. To overcome this problem an automatic system
Km:10+295 - CH Blockage, 26 days - maximum overburden: 256 m. for self-drilling, dampening system and data logging system had been added, so that
Km:9+712 - CH Blockage - 52 days - maximum overburden: 240 m. it became possible to drill automatically and to collect data such as penetration rate,
percussion pressure, rotation pressure, feed pressure, dampening pressure data.
• Increased Thrust and Cutterhead Torque: Additional 19 short stroke cylinders were
added and they provide 50% more thrust than normal thrust when TBM is squeezed.
So additional gearbox were mounted to the TBM in order to set free the blocked cutter
head easily. Torque capacity was increase by 2.4 times and it is electronically limited to
only increase torque to 170% for 10 second interval each two minutes. Gearboxes were
dismantled after poor ground conditions to restrict maximum speed.
•A dditional Drive Motor: Number of the electro motors for cutter head drive was
increased to 14 (the preceding one 13) and total power was 5180kW (14x370kW).
•S hield Lubrication: Shield Lubrication was applied in order that reduce friction angle
between shield and ground. Therefore, holes were opened through the shield skin to
extrude lubrication and pumping system was set. Bentonite and chemicals was used as
a lubrication materials.
•O verbore Capabilities: Excavation diameter of the TBM was increased by shimming the
Advancement (m) outermost gauge cutters. And excavation diameter was increased by 50 mm (total 105
Km: 11+872 -‐ 9+500 9+500 -‐ 6+632 6+632 -‐ 4+003 mm) when it was necessary. This system was implemented in order to going ahead
Tectonized Imbricated before being caught by the squeezing ground.
Conglomerate
Ophiolitc Rocks Metamorphites •U mbrella Drilling and Ground Injection System: For providing to drill and to place fore-
The Best Daily Adv. (m) 28.50 39.00 34.50 poles 11 holes were opened on the top section in the front shield.
The Average Daily Adv.(m) 4.24 19.00 16.60 •S calar For Excavated Material: A scalar which includes a load cell was placed to the
The Best Monthly Adv. (m) 330.00 660.00 723.20 conveyor belt. So that it became possible to know if there is over excavation or collapse
500.60 in front of the TBM
The Average Monthly Adv. (m) 126.60 569.80
(*647.14)
*Excluding main bearing repair delay

>> Annex 1 data base - niagara tunnel project 1/3
Niagara Tunnel Project
Country Canada Tunnel Length 10,4 km
Client Ontario Power Generation (OPG) Ø excavated 14,4 m
Engineers Hatch Mott MacDonald Functionality Other
Contractors Strabag AG TBM Type Hard Rock TBM with Grippers
Description The new tunnel passes under the St. David’s Buried Gorge, at roughly 140 m below ground surface, crossing down through the Lockport to
Whirlpool Formations and into the upper 60 m of the Queenston Formation before making its ascent back toward the surface.
Main Queenston formation: Mudstone and siltstone. Cataract Group including Whirlpool, Power Glen, and Grimsby Formations: Marine sediments,
lithologies limestone. Clinton Group including Rochester and Irondequit Formations: Dolomitic limestone, calcareous shale, dolomite, sandstone. Albemarle
Group including Lockport and Decew Formations: Crystalline dolomitic limestone and mudstone.

Hydrological The Decew dolomite has a distinct contact with the underlying Rochester Formation. Water flowing through the karst channels at this contact was a
conditions construciton challenge.
Geological Profile
(showing revised
alignment)
Representative A) reduction banding

observational (greenish grey bands) within the
Queenston Formation. Note that
samples the sub-vertical to vertical joints
were only observed in the upper
most ~50 m of the Queenston.
B) Complex interbeds of shale
within the Thorold sandstone,
C) two continuous, thin shale
beds,\0.020 m thick, in the
upper Reynales Formation, and
D) a bioherm (Irondequoit
limestone) protruding up into
the Rochester Formation

Seen in Whirlpool-Queenston contact zone, St. David’s Gorge, and high stress zones, these
Spalling overbreak areas were generally seen as the result of stress-induced spalling.
Brittle behaviour Overbreak in Queenston Formation associated with formations or interbedded layers less than 50
Overbreak Mpa UCS. The thickness of the weaker layers determined the depth of the overbreak. The overbreak
can be described as gravity slabbing with assistance from stress-induced fracture growth.

behaviour Squeezing
High water pressure
Mud inrush
Face instability -
aspects

TBM DESIGN DATA
TBM specific design For the construction of the Niagara Tunnel Project, Strabag A.G.
purchased a new Robbins High Performance (HP) Main Beam TBM,
and a new H.P. back-up system provided by Rowa Tunnel Logistics
A.G. of Wangen, Switzerland. The TBM Model 471-316, nicknamed
“Big Becky,” is the world’s largest hard rock TBM ever manufactured.
Design of the HP machine included the use of 20” rear mounted cutters,
high cutterhead power and state-of-the-art ground support equipment.
For ground support, a rotary-type ring beam erector was provided in
the L1 area directly behind the TBM cutterhead support. The erector
could hydraulically lift the ring beam or channel section into place and
hydraulically expand the steel sections against the rock. Also in the L1
area, a dual-function wire mesh erector and material handling cart was
provided, as well as two Atlas Copco rock drills installed on 6 m slides.
A shotcrete robot supplied by Rowa/Meyco was also supplied in the L1
area that could cover a 180-degree section of the tunnel crown at a rate
of 20 cubic meters per hour. In the L-2 area on the back-up, another
two drills were provided as well as two more remote-controlled shotcrete
robots with 360-degree coverage.
Machine Length 45 m Nominal cutterhead diameter 14,44 m

Back-up length 105 m
Number and Diameter of
Minimal shield diameter 85 no and 20/17»
cutterdisks
Shield conicity on the Total Power 4722 KW
diameter
Nominal top void Maximal Torque 18.8 (at 2.4 rpm) MNm
Maximal top void Torque at maximal speed 9.025 (at 5.0 rpm) MNm
Breakaway Torque
Thrust
Cutterhead Thrust 19 MN Nb of Grippers 2

Maximum Cutterhead 28 MN Grippers Thrust
Thrust
Stress Thrust 21
Auxiliarry Thrust
Behind the tunnel face Precast segments

(installation distance) 5m
Ribs erector steel channels Number of segments 6 + 1 (key stone)
Sprayed Concrete Robots one, top 180 degrees Inner Diameter 8,7 m
Bolts Rigs rock bolts up to 6 m long Segment Thickness 40 cm
Other support wire mesh 50 mm thick Ring Length 1,5 m
Ribs erector not used Steel ratio reinforcement 73 and 148 kg/m3
Sprayed Concrete Robots two shotcrete robots Other Cast in situ
Bolts Rigs two additional drills Thickness 60
Other support Steel Reinforcement Polyolefin waterproof lining

The actual TBM performance on this project was considered quite good, After about 793 m of excavation the TBM entered the Queenston shale formation, where
with the machine achieving a world record for TBMs over 11 m in diameter large rock blocks started to fall from the crown before rock support could be placed. In
in July 2009. some cases, significant over-break up to 3 m above the cutterhead support was reported.
There was a contractual requirement to scale down loose rock before lining could be
Best Shift Best Day Best Week Best Month placed. The TBM was not set-up to scale down loose rock over the cutterhead or to
14 25.4 153.2 467.8 place ground support outside the periphery of the bore. The ground support system was
meters meters meters meters modified while excavation continued, from essential access by platform system to access
by man bucket system.
The cutter life was also considered to be good. The total number of
cutter changed was 788, or 2,100 cubic meters per cutter. There were Strabag ultimately designed a unique ground support system to cope with the geology,
some problems with the cutters in the upper rock formations, however. which consisted of 9 m long pipe spiles in an umbrella pattern at the crown of the tunnel.
The cutters were prematurely blocked due to the cement-like effect of the Using the new spiling method, over-break was limited to about 0.9 m above the normal
fines and water. The wet rock fines and water packed around cutters as is tunnel diameter. Nearly 500 m of very difficult ground was excavated using this method, at
normal, but special problems arose because of the consistency of the fines average rates of about 3 m per day.
and the chemical content of the rock. Within a few hours of downtime, the
fines hardened into a cement-like mixture, causing cutters not to turn when The new ground support program, done for all excavated ground, consisted of 3 to 4 m
the cutterhead rotation was restarted. A foaming system was prepared as a long rock bolts, self-drilling (IBO) anchor bolts, steel straps, wire mesh and wire-reinforced
corrective action but the situation eventually self-corrected as the machine shotcrete. Crews typically bored half a stroke, then began scaling down loose rock and
moved into another rock formation. installing rock bolts. After the full 1.8 m stroke, the rest of the loose rock was scaled down
Rotation was restarted. A foaming system was prepared as a corrective before installing more rock bolts, wire mesh, steel straps and a layer of shotcrete.
action but the situation eventually self-corrected as the machine moved into
another rock formation. OPG and the contractor also opted to alter the vertical alignment of the tunnel,
raising it 46 m to move the tunnel out of the Queenston shale. After 1,981 m,
There were no major mechanical problems with the TBM. There were rock conditions were competent enough that spiling was no longer required.
no major interventions for cutterhead repair, and there were no main
bearing or main gear problems as a result of design. Most gear reducers On large diameter TBMs there has to be a lot of attention to ground support.What we
lasted the complete project. There were some problems with the variable have learned from the Niagara project and other large bore projects is the following:
frequency drives in the early stages of boring. Due to some erratic steering
in difficult ground, the main beam was overstressed and at one point had • Face fall out is a regular occurrence because rock jointing, fissures, jointing etc. and
to be repaired. The machine mined for 6,700 hours and, considering it the combination of loose rock at the face on a large area exasperate the condition. It
was inundated with scaled down rock for approximately 3,000 meters, the can be expected that rock fall out will extend beyond the periphery of the tunnel in the
equipment had very good availability. cutterhead area.
• The rock support system needs to be flexible and adjustable for various types of rock
support. The final rock support system at Niagara accommodated this requirement.
• If acceptable, hold loose rock in place. This can be done by rock bolting and the
McNally System or a combination of this and other systems (see Figure 10).
• New shotcrete type systems with non-rebound shotcrete material are available that are
user friendly and TBM friendly and effective in the cutterhead area.
• Think of an NATM approach for rock support, even though the TBM is in the tunnel.
Over-break above the TBM
The revised ground support system.

>> Annex 1 data base - lesotho highlands water project 1/3
Lesotho Highlands Water Project
Country Lesotho Tunnel Length 82 km
Client Lesotho Highlands Development Authority Ø excavated 5m

/Trans Caledon Tunnel Authority
Engineers Hatch Mott MacDonald Functionality Water supply
Contractors LHPC (Spie Batignolles/LTA Ltd./Ed Zublin/Balfour Beatty TBM Type Hard Rock TBM with Grippers
/Campenon Bernard JV)
Phase 1A began construction in 1991, which involved building the 180 m high Katse Dam, as well as approximately 82 km of TBM-driven tunnels to
Description provide water to South Africa’s arid Gaucheng Province. Tunneling operations consist of three main tunnels: The 15 km Delivery Tunnel South (DTS),
the 22 km Delivery Tunnel North (DTN), and the 45 km long Water Transfer Tunnel. A total of five hard rock TBMs bored these tunnels--four of them
open-type gripper machines from Robbins and one shielded TBM provided by Wirth.
Water Transfer Tunnel--Lesotho/Drakensberg Formation: Basaltic flows, volcanic rock with variable amygdaloidal content, blocky conditions
Main with faulted areas and doleritic dykes. 80-176 MPa UCS. South Delivery Tunnel--Stormberg Group, Upper Formation of the Karoo Sequence, a
lithologies deposit formation in the Karoo Basin: Sedimentary Rock. Clarens Formation: Sandstone with compressive strengths between 20 and 180 MPa.
North Delivery Tunnel--Elliot and Molteno Formations: Silt, Sand, and Claystones. Beaufort Group: Claystones.
Hydrological Water inflows were mainly experienced in the South Delivery Tunnel from faults and fissures in sandstone.
conditions
Geological Profile
Geological
Conditions

Spalling
Brittle behaviour
Overbreak

behaviour Squeezing
High water pressure
Mud inrush
Face instability Blocky rock Mainly in the transfer tunnel; blocky rock at the face and rock falls from the crown area.
aspects

TBM DESIGN DATA
TBM specific design
Based on the geological conditions in the water transfer and South

Delivery Tunnels, it was clear the TBMs should be open-type machines.
The first of the Robbins machines, the -206, was rebuilt by Harrison
Western Corp and shipped to the jobsite in 1991. A Jarva (Kelly type)
MK 15 machine followed that, along with two identical open-type
machines, the -266 and -267. The machines were supplied with back-
loading cutterheads and could be used with either 432 or 483 mm
diameter discs. The 483 mm diameter cutters could achieve a cutter
load of 312 kN for difficult ground where increased power might be
needed. The machines offered flexible ground support options--on the
-266/-267 machines a probe drill mounted on a 7 m long sliding deck
about 20 m behind the cutterhead allowed for probe drilling concurrent
with TBM advance. The machines were designed to be able to support
the tunnel walls with a combination of rock bolts, wire mesh, and ring
beams as required.
TBM specific design

(-206, MK 15, -266/267)
Shield Length Nominal cutterhead diameter 5.18/5.0/5.0 m

Back-up length
Number and Diameter of
Minimal shield diameter 37 no. 17», 34 no. 17», 31 no. 17» or 19» m
cutterdisks
Shield conicity on the Total Power 1110/1680/1575
diameter
Nominal top void Maximal Torque 1.336/1.588/1.475
Maximal top void Torque at maximal speed
Breakaway Torque
Thrust
Cutterhead Thrust 7.4/8.3/9.7 MN Nb of Grippers 2/4/2

Maximum Cutterhead Grippers Thrust
Thrust
Stress Thrust
Auxiliarry Thrust
Behind the tunnel face (installation distance) Precast segments
Ribs erector steel channels Number of segments
Sprayed Concrete Robots yes, in difficult ground Inner Diameter
Bolts Rigs systematic rock bolts Segment Thickness
Other support wire mesh Ring Length
On the back up Different type of segments
Ribs erector Steel ratio reinforcement
Sprayed Concrete Robots Other
Bolts Rigs one additional Thickness
Other support Steel Reinforcement

Overall, the TBMs performed well, but the worst conditions were
experienced in the transfer tunnel. Poor ground was most liked to be
encountered in a mixed face where dolerite sills or dykes occurred in
basalt rock. Ring breakages were high in such situations. Where blocky
rock was encountered, loose rocks in the face tended to be ground
rather than chipped, and this resulted in more wear on the cutters.
Both crazing and random closely spaced joints caused problems, as
crazing leads to deterioration of basalt when exposed to air or water
and with time results in sloughing. Crazing was most notable in the
invert where there was a constant flow of water from the rock. In some
areas of the invert, crazing lifted track segments for the service trains.
Random closely spaced jointing were also a problem because they
could caused large wedges to break from the crown and sidewalls.
Rockbolts up to 2.5 m in length were thus used in these areas. as well
as wire mesh to prevent rock from falling from the crown. Some rock
spalling occurred in sections of the transfer tunnels as well; this did not
occur in the zones of greatest overburden, but under relatively shallow
cover of 120 m where the horizontal stress exceeded the vertical stress.
Several dykes were encountered during the excavation, but few required
grouting. Lastly, under the zone of greatest overburden (1200 m), the rock
temperature rose to 42 degrees Celsius, requiring a large refrigeration
unit to keep the temperature at the face below 27 degrees Celsius.
On the South Delivery Tunnel, conditions were better and the machine
performed well. The maximum daily advance was 81.9 m, compared to
the expected daily advance of 23 m. The excavation program finished 20
months ahead of the scheduled completion date. High groundwater inflows
occurred in areas on the drive from fissures and faults in the sandstone,
requiring grouting. This included a zone 900 m in length just before
breakthough where the TBM encountered weaker fractured rock in contact
with underlying formations. About 65 to 70 tonnes of cement grout were
injected to reduce inflows of 1880 liters/min at pressures up to 8 bar. Rock
support included everything from tensional rock bolts 1.5 m in length (Class
I ground) to systemative support with rock bolts 1.8 m long, mesh, and 50
mm of shotcrete (Class IV ground). Support class V was rarely encountered
and used 1.0 m long end-anchored bolts in addition to other support.
Cracking of basalt in transfer tunnel
Final TBM breakthrough in October 1994


longrine 04 90 14 48 48 - (21619 - 05/17)
ITA Secretariat c/o EPFL - Bât. GC - Station 18 - CH - 1015 Lausanne - Tel. : + 41 21 693 23 10 - Fax : + 41 21 693 41 53
Email : secretariat@ita-aites.org - Web : www.ita-aites.org

WG17 2017 BD - 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WG17 2017 BD - 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TBM Excavation of Long and Deep Tunnels

Under Difficult Rock Conditions

ITA Working Group n°17

N° ISBN: 978-2-9701122-2-8 ITA REPORT n°19 / MAY 2017

21619-AITES-REPORT-xx-WG17.indd 1 08/06/17 12:38

21619-AITES-REPORT-xx-WG17.indd 2 08/06/17 12:38

ITA Working Group n°17

21619-AITES-REPORT-xx-WG17.indd 3 08/06/17 12:38

21619-AITES-REPORT-xx-WG17.indd 4 08/06/17 12:38

ITA Working Group n°17 - Long Tunnels at Great Depth 5

21619-AITES-REPORT-xx-WG17.indd 5 08/06/17 12:38

21619-AITES-REPORT-xx-WG17.indd 6 08/06/17 12:38

§2.1 Brittle behaviour :

§ 2.2 Highly deformable rock mass :

§2.3 Presence of water (water inrush) :

§2.4 Other Phenomena or consequence :

§2.5 Environmental conditions :

The predictability is classified as :

ITA Working Group n°17 - Long Tunnels at Great Depth 7

21619-AITES-REPORT-xx-WG17.indd 7 08/06/17 12:38

2.1. BRITTLE BEHAVIOUR

2.1.1. Rockburst, Spalling

BRITTLE BEHAVIOUR: ROCKBURST, SPALLING

• High rock strength

21619-AITES-REPORT-xx-WG17.indd 8 08/06/17 12:38

2.2. HIGHLY DEFORMABLE BEHAVIOUR

Predictability DIFFICULT TO PREDICT

• High stress level (high overburden)

ITA Working Group n°17 - Long Tunnels at Great Depth 9

21619-AITES-REPORT-xx-WG17.indd 9 08/06/17 12:38

In TBM tunnelling, following problems may occur:

Predictability DIFFICULT TO PREDICT

• High stress level (high overburden)

21619-AITES-REPORT-xx-WG17.indd 10 08/06/17 12:38

2.3. PRESENCE OF WATER INRUSH

2.3.1. Water inrush with extremely high inflow (clear water)

EXTREMELY HIGH WATER INRUSH (CLEAR WATER )

Predictability POSSIBLE TO PREDICT to DIFFICULT TO PREDICT (e.g. in karstic rock)

• Water bearing rock mass

ITA Working Group n°17 - Long Tunnels at Great Depth 11

21619-AITES-REPORT-xx-WG17.indd 11 08/06/17 12:38

2.3.2. Water inflow under high hydrostatic pressure

HIGH WATER PRESSURE

• Water bearing rock mass

2.3.3. Mud inrush

Predictability POSSIBLE TO PREDICT to DIFFICULT TO PREDICT (e.g. in karstic rock)

• Water bearing rock mass

21619-AITES-REPORT-xx-WG17.indd 12 08/06/17 12:38

2.4. OTHER PHENOMENA OR CONSEQUENCES

2.4.1. Face instability

Predictability DIFFICULT TO PREDICT

ITA Working Group n°17 - Long Tunnels at Great Depth 13

21619-AITES-REPORT-xx-WG17.indd 13 08/06/17 12:38

2.5. ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS

2.5.1. High temperature

HIGH WATER PRESSURE

Predictability POSSIBLE TO PREDICT with survey boreholes

• High overburden and / or

21619-AITES-REPORT-xx-WG17.indd 14 08/06/17 12:38

1 Negligible : No further consideration of the hazard is needed

ITA Working Group n°17 - Long Tunnels at Great Depth 15

21619-AITES-REPORT-xx-WG17.indd 15 08/06/17 12:38

Phenomena Hazards CONSEQUENCE Level Identification of consequences on TBM Location